From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 1 00:03:59 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 17:03:59 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Has anyone studied this law yet? Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 30 June 2018 11:03 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > While this law takes effect from 1 January 2020, given its similarities to the GDPR and the fact it has been adopted in ICANN's place of incorporation, I would suggest we should consider the impact of this piece of legislation on the work of the EPDP as well. > > California Unanimously Passes Historic Privacy Bill > https://www.wired.com/story/california-unanimously-passes-historic-privacy-bill/ > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 00:12:01 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 23:12:01 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Charter Templates for providing additional feedback In-Reply-To: <4C1DA22F-A40C-47D1-A561-16ABF46CC95C@gmail.com> References: <109272F9-500E-4DDB-ACD3-9FA09E532EC7@icann.org> <4C1DA22F-A40C-47D1-A561-16ABF46CC95C@gmail.com> Message-ID: I will appreciate to hear your views on my question bellow, thanks > > On the EPDP Team, do we all agree to push for 1 member (+ 1 alternate) from > ACs? > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Caitlin Tubergen >> Date: June 29, 2018 at 12:50:15 AM GMT+2 >> To: "Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt" >> Subject: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Charter Templates for providing additional >> feedback >> >> Dear Drafting Team Members, >> >> Thank you for all of your work at ICANN62. >> >> In an effort to catalogue feedback in one place and avoid version control >> issues, ICANN Staff has created Google Doc templates that you may use to >> continue to provide feedback on the draft charter. Each template >> provides: >> >> The current text in the charter >> A section for comments/concerns/feedback >> Proposed compromise text (if any) >> >> The templates are divided by category so that you will be able to zero in >> on the categories you would like to provide additional feedback on. >> Additionally, multiple templates prevent one template from becoming too >> long and unwieldy. >> >> We have done our best to input the comments received via the list so far, >> but please feel free to comment on the text if your feedback was >> inadvertently omitted. >> >> If you would like to provide additional feedback, please be sure to put >> your name next to the feedback so it is clear who is making the >> suggestion(s). >> >> Here are the links to the templates: >> >> Scope >> Membership Criteria >> EPDP Team >> Key Metrics Considerations >> Leadership >> Recommended Working Methods and Resources >> Problem/Issue Escalation & Resolution Processes >> Decision-Making Methodologies >> Problem/Issue Escalation & Resolution Processes >> >> If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. >> >> Kind regards, and safe travels, >> >> Caitlin >> >> Caitlin Tubergen >> Policy Senior Manager - GNSO >> ICANN >> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >> Los Angeles, CA 90094 >> Office: +1 310 578 8666 >> Mobile: +1 310 699 5326 >> Email: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 00:32:33 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 23:32:33 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, thanks for whatching the list :) Keith literally ignored my message, this is telling. I also agree that we need to continue pushing for this until it is resolved (or we reach a comprimise) and not doing so in time will result in us being busy fighting other battles and forget about this one. We should indeed have the same number of reps within the NCPH (which should be 6 not 9, or at least 3) and have only 1 from the ACs. I am still wondering how Keith came to suggest this inequality between CSG and NCSG. 2018-06-30 20:35 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii : > Dear all, > > I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members > have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite > clear. > > Keith Drazek says in the email that: > > * Attached is my updated version of the membership structure > (following this mornings discussion)* > > I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to > allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 > members. > > Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to > coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list > upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we > need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been > allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. > > If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of > 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and > was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that > we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH > The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. > > > I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be > more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing > for equal number of members to participate at SG level. > > > I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but > if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that > CSG is getting 9 members > > > (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been > raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been > then sorry for the unnecessary email. > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Keith, > > Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden > and that you will update your document? > > If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be > incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? > > Thanks, > Arsene > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > >>* On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > > wrote: > *> >* Thank you for preparing this, Keith. > *> >* I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members > each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to > appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). > *> >* I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the > original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How > each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own > membership composition is its own prerogative. > *> >* Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing > consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder > Group." > *> >* In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH > must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of > consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be > disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." > *> >* Thank you again for working on this, Keith. > *> >* Best wishes, > *> >* Ayden F?rdeline > *> > >* ??????? Original Message ??????? > *>>* On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt icann.org > wrote: > *>> >>* Hi all, > *>> >> >> >> >>* Attached is my updated version of the membership > structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very > preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. > *>> >> >> >> >>* Please send comments!! > *>> >> >> >>* Thanks, > *>> >>* Keith* > > > Farzaneh > -- > Farzaneh > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) From dgdorothydg at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 06:45:54 2018 From: dgdorothydg at gmail.com (dorothy g) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:45:54 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Farzaneh for catching this. You have our support. Any concrete next steps? best On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > Hi Farzaneh, thanks for whatching the list :) > > Keith literally ignored my message, this is telling. > > I also agree that we need to continue pushing for this until it is > resolved (or we reach a comprimise) and not doing so in time will > result in us being busy fighting other battles and forget about this > one. > > We should indeed have the same number of reps within the NCPH (which > should be 6 not 9, or at least 3) and have only 1 from the ACs. I am > still wondering how Keith came to suggest this inequality between CSG > and NCSG. > > 2018-06-30 20:35 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii : > > Dear all, > > > > I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members > > have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite > > clear. > > > > Keith Drazek says in the email that: > > > > * Attached is my updated version of the membership structure > > (following this mornings discussion)* > > > > I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to > > allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 > > members. > > > > Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to > > coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list > > upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we > > need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been > > allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. > > > > If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of > > 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and > > was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that > > we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH > > The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. > > > > > > I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be > > more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing > > for equal number of members to participate at SG level. > > > > > > I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but > > if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that > > CSG is getting 9 members > > > > > > (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been > > raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been > > then sorry for the unnecessary email. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Keith, > > > > Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden > > and that you will update your document? > > > > If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be > > incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? > > > > Thanks, > > Arsene > > ----------------- > > Ars?ne Tungali, > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > > >>* On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline >> > wrote: > > *> >* Thank you for preparing this, Keith. > > *> >* I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members > > each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to > > appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). > > *> >* I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the > > original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How > > each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own > > membership composition is its own prerogative. > > *> >* Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing > > consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder > > Group." > > *> >* In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH > > must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of > > consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be > > disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." > > *> >* Thank you again for working on this, Keith. > > *> >* Best wishes, > > *> >* Ayden F?rdeline > > *> > >* ??????? Original Message ??????? > > *>>* On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > icann.org > wrote: > > *>> >>* Hi all, > > *>> >> >> >> >>* Attached is my updated version of the membership > > structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very > > preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. > > *>> >> >> >> >>* Please send comments!! > > *>> >> >> >>* Thanks, > > *>> >>* Keith* > > > > > > Farzaneh > > -- > > Farzaneh > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > **Ars?ne Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa > Forum > * > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > mandela-washington.html> > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf- > ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors> > & Mexico > leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) > - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger > - ICANN's GNSO Council > Member. AFRINIC Fellow > ( > Mauritius > >)* > - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet > Freedom. > > Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English > ) and (French > ) > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgdorothydg at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 06:50:40 2018 From: dgdorothydg at gmail.com (dorothy g) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:50:40 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality In-Reply-To: References: <30F9624A-DFB5-44DB-86F2-F1E68D844433@gmail.com> Message-ID: It should be made clear to candidates upfront that these statements will be in public domain. These are positions affect the community and the community has the right to know. best On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > There should be transparency here. I actually think candidate statements > (and especially conflict of interest statements) should be made public. The > claim of being "sensitive to privacy" is one I am finding difficult to > understand. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 20:19, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > > Any strong opinions here? This proposal changes the general understanding > of, yesterday. > > Martin > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Carlos Raul Gutierrez > *Subject: **Re: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality* > *Date: *29 June 2018 at 08:22:22 EST > *To: *epdp-dt at icann.org, Marika Konings > > I support Donna's position, particularly as the expectation on neutrality > (perceived or real) may depend on the eye of the beholder. > > As Michelle expressed during one of the meetings, who has no vested > interest in the results of this PDP? > > > safe travels to all > --- > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > carlosraul at gutierrez.se > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > > > El 2018-06-29 07:34, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt escribi?: > > All > > Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my > reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be > made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the > candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to > have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I > thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. > > I'm also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership > team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I > understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but > this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well. > > If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on > the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection > etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is > only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more > representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as > a result of the processes they've undertaken to date. > > Thanks > > Donna > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > *100* > > > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 07:02:50 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 06:02:50 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods References: <962B3BFF-5233-49F3-80E8-DEA3EBEAA501@icann.org> Message-ID: <5B5480B4-527C-4AEB-8DEA-90B132E9EB99@gmail.com> Here is the estimate about the cost of meeting transcript. I think we will need to decide if we continue pushing for ? transcription of all WG meetings ?. We need to find balance here and move forward. ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) Begin forwarded message: > From: Marika Konings > Date: July 1, 2018 at 12:34:17 AM GMT+2 > To: "Austin, Donna" , Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Cc: "epdp-dt at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > > If I am not mistaken, the costs for transcripts are approx. 300 USD per hour. It should be taken into account though that if transcripts are expected with the current quality and turnaround time, it also means that all calls will need to be held on a Verizon phone bridge which is more expensive than a non-operator PGI call which is currently used for smaller calls such as sub-team or work track meetings for which no transcripts are requested. As such, if you decide to request that transcripts are made available for all EPDP calls, this will need to be called out in the ?resources expected to be available? section as it is not part of the standard services. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: Epdp-dt on behalf of "Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt" > Reply-To: Donna Austin > Date: Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 16:15 > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Cc: "epdp-dt at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > > I agree, transcripts don?t equate to transparency. > > It would be helpful to understand the cost and make a judgment about benefit v cost. > > I think we?ve identified a number of benefits and we should also take into account that we expect alternates for the EPDP to keep up to date with events and it seems to me that transcripts could be the most efficient way to do this. > > Donna > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > > Ayden > Transparency does not mean transcripts. > If you want to argue in favour of transcripts you??re welcome to do so, but there??s a big difference > > Regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > https://blacknight.blog/ > https://ceo.hosting/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, > Ireland Company No.: 370845 > From: Ayden F??rdeline > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 3:45:19 PM > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Cc: Stephanie Perrin; epdp-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > > While I think it is reasonable to ask how much transcription costs, ultimately transparency is an institutional concept mandated by our own Operating Procedures and a conceptual component of the principle of democracy. The legitimation of any authority, including that of ICANN, requires decisions that are reached, including the political and non-political objectives that feed into these decisions, to be properly understood and withstand scrutiny. Scrutiny is impossible without detailed and accessible records. This is negotiable only up to a point. We can negotiate over who does the transcripts or how long they take to produce (and I don't think they need to be fast-tracked ordinarily), but we cannot negotiate over whether transcripts are produced. > > This EPDP will attract a great level of interest and scrutiny from across the ICANN community. I think it is of the highest importance for the credibility of the GNSO that our agenda setting and decision making processes be seen as being as transparent as possible, particularly in light of the attention that this EPDP will generate. > > ??Ayden > > > ?\?\?\?\?\?\?\ Original Message ?\?\?\?\?\?\?\ > On 30 June 2018 10:38 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > > We don??t have an actual cost though, do we? > > > Mr Michele Neylon > > https://www.blacknight.com/ > https://michele.blog > Intl. +353 (0)59 9183072 > Sent from mobile so usual disclaimers about typos etc apply > > On 30 Jun 2018, at 14:29, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > There are so many advantages...transcripts are searchable, you can do analytics on them with easily available tools (Discourse analysis, e.g.), you can copy and put it through google translate....a matter that is rather basic in terms of fundamental fairness to non-english language speakers. I think for the amount of money we are blowing on belated compliance with DP law, this is peanuts. > > cheers Stephanie > > > > On 2018-06-29 14:16, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > Oh yes! Specially for timing, I can read insanely faster than I have to listen to a recording (even if I only have to listen to it once). > > Martin > > On 29 Jun 2018, at 07:00, Austin, Donna wrote: > > A question for our multi-lingual colleagues. Are transcripts better/easier for non-English speakers to review a meeting than listening to the recording? > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 28, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > > If the transcription was ??cost effective?? then I wouldn??t have as much of an issue with it, but I??d prefer we had some visibility on costs before we make a commitment to it > > A lot of calls / meetings have a lot of spurious discussions which aren??t adding any value. Of course there is value in the meetings overall, but you should be able to get that from the minutes / notes of the meetings > https://youtu.be/z_tiqlBFjbk > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez > Date: Thursday 28 June 2018 at 16:19 > To: "mpsilvavalent at gmail.com" > Cc: Michele Neylon , "epdp-dt at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > > All cloud services offer now voice to text, and ti takes just a little bit of money and a few seconds of ai computational power: > > https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-transcribe-scalable-and-accurate-automatic-speech-recognition/ > > The problem is not the transcription, but the process ICANN (still) uses for transcriptions > > > --- > Carlos Ra??l Guti??rrez > carlosraul at gutierrez.se > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > > El 2018-06-28 16:10, Martin Pablo Silva Valent escribi??: > I agree with Ayden that transcript are a useful feature for this kind of work at icann. And we already have automated transcript as far as I know, we can ask for opinon to staff towards cost, but is not intuitive to me that transcripts are not worthy in such a special case. The value for transparency and the ability to read debate is also very useful. > > > Cheers, > Mart??n > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:29 Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > Ayden > > I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere > > I agree with most of your other points. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > From: Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F??rdeline > Reply-To: Ayden F??rdeline > Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 > To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" > Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > > Hi all, > > I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: > > 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. > > Please revise this text from: > > In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: > > To: > > All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: > > 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. > > Please revise the text from: > > the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. > > To: > > the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. > > 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. > > Suggested text: > > The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. > > Kind regards, > Ayden F??rdeline > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=NcAFBsM3QosMQBljp1z92iaJHH5KK4oskW3NvlC2MAs&e= > > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=6R0KUMuvgBvUd6EXg7HhXPNxwy8KvLJCfMHP72HqkiY&e= > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 1 07:06:09 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 00:06:09 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: <5B5480B4-527C-4AEB-8DEA-90B132E9EB99@gmail.com> References: <962B3BFF-5233-49F3-80E8-DEA3EBEAA501@icann.org> <5B5480B4-527C-4AEB-8DEA-90B132E9EB99@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is a cost of doing business for ICANN. Yes, we should continue to request that all meetings be transcribed. The response is very odd anyway. Why must the Verizon audio bridge be used for transcription? Why can?t they just sent the mp3 file over to the transcriber? Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 06:02, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > Here is the estimate about the cost of meeting transcript. I think we will need to decide if we continue pushing for ? transcription of all WG meetings ?. We need to find balance here and move forward. > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Marika Konings >> Date: July 1, 2018 at 12:34:17 AM GMT+2 >> To: "Austin, Donna" , Michele Neylon - Blacknight >> Cc: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > >> If I am not mistaken, the costs for transcripts are approx. 300 USD per hour. It should be taken into account though that if transcripts are expected with the current quality and turnaround time, it also means that all calls will need to be held on a Verizon phone bridge which is more expensive than a non-operator PGI call which is currently used for smaller calls such as sub-team or work track meetings for which no transcripts are requested. As such, if you decide to request that transcripts are made available for all EPDP calls, this will need to be called out in the ?resources expected to be available? section as it is not part of the standard services. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> From: Epdp-dt on behalf of "Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt" >> Reply-To: Donna Austin >> Date: Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 16:15 >> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >> Cc: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >> >> I agree, transcripts don?t equate to transparency. >> >> It would be helpful to understand the cost and make a judgment about benefit v cost. >> >> I think we?ve identified a number of benefits and we should also take into account that we expect alternates for the EPDP to keep up to date with events and it seems to me that transcripts could be the most efficient way to do this. >> >> Donna >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Transparency does not mean transcripts. >>> >>> If you want to argue in favour of transcripts you??re welcome to do so, but there??s a big difference >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Michele >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Mr Michele Neylon >>> >>> Blacknight Solutions >>> >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>> >>> [https://www.blacknight.com/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwQFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=_a7oilwKn7uQn1DHLumOB4RgWqvCLM6h3N6-Gtf3HV4&e=) >>> >>> [https://blacknight.blog/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwQFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=u5mw2fW73MfL0MBZTVqd0JmIu89J-MwDLwC50pzWrx8&e=) >>> >>> [https://ceo.hosting/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwQFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=ul62VtbssiPHWzbHnMaYSLnOFMHikitEVEY0h68qhw8&e=) >>> >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>> >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>> >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, >>> >>> Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> From: Ayden F??rdeline >>> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 3:45:19 PM >>> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>> Cc: Stephanie Perrin; epdp-dt at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>> >>> While I think it is reasonable to ask how much transcription costs, ultimately transparency is an institutional concept mandated by our own Operating Procedures and a conceptual component of the principle of democracy. The legitimation of any authority, including that of ICANN, requires decisions that are reached, including the political and non-political objectives that feed into these decisions, to be properly understood and withstand scrutiny. Scrutiny is impossible without detailed and accessible records. This is negotiable only up to a point. We can negotiate over who does the transcripts or how long they take to produce (and I don't think they need to be fast-tracked ordinarily), but we cannot negotiate over whether transcripts are produced. >>> >>> This EPDP will attract a great level of interest and scrutiny from across the ICANN community. I think it is of the highest importance for the credibility of the GNSO that our agenda setting and decision making processes be seen as being as transparent as possible, particularly in light of the attention that this EPDP will generate. >>> >>> ??Ayden >>> >>> ???? ??? Original Message ?? ????? >>> >>> On 30 June 2018 10:38 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >>> >>>> We don??t have an actual cost though, do we? >>>> >>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>> >>>> [https://www.blacknight.com/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwMFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=_a7oilwKn7uQn1DHLumOB4RgWqvCLM6h3N6-Gtf3HV4&e=) >>>> >>>> [https://michele.blog](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog&d=DwMFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=kPqrsVOUMfbSFbBbDq0cXB0zyyXbppoplH18sw03Ddg&e=) >>>> >>>> Intl. +353 (0)59 9183072 >>>> >>>> Sent from mobile so usual disclaimers about typos etc apply >>>> >>>> On 30 Jun 2018, at 14:29, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>> >>>>> There are so many advantages...transcripts are searchable, you can do analytics on them with easily available tools (Discourse analysis, e.g.), you can copy and put it through google translate....a matter that is rather basic in terms of fundamental fairness to non-english language speakers. I think for the amount of money we are blowing on belated compliance with DP law, this is peanuts. >>>>> >>>>> cheers Stephanie >>>>> >>>>> On 2018-06-29 14:16, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Oh yes! Specially for timing, I can read insanely faster than I have to listen to a recording (even if I only have to listen to it once). >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 29 Jun 2018, at 07:00, Austin, Donna wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A question for our multi-lingual colleagues. Are transcripts better/easier for non-English speakers to review a meeting than listening to the recording? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 28, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the transcription was ??cost effective?? then I wouldn??t have as much of an issue with it, but I??d prefer we had some visibility on costs before we make a commitment to it >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A lot of calls / meetings have a lot of spurious discussions which aren??t adding any value. Of course there is value in the meetings overall, but you should be able to get that from the minutes / notes of the meetings >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [https://youtu.be/z_tiqlBFjbk](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_z-5FtiqlBFjbk&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=vvqDp0M6V7T0SB--m1mrTtrib1LiJ0yd_1kuKrixVWs&e=) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [https://www.blacknight.com/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=4GoSbA0reGcerFxZphEnC1dQKCIHdPldkTeiFxX7fFA&e=) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [http://blacknight.blog/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=DRmsyb0uCS74iam9yMz3ThaRYBc8mQZCGSR89xB8biQ&e=) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personal blog: [https://michele.blog/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=YkqOfoXTlsEuCPvLLcXTrLiREkiHct-aZhWb5EvCtKM&e=) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some thoughts: [https://ceo.hosting/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=e159ARWweTxJY7yC-i5sBUuUfYKzbmvetN1FFZ23ulA&e=) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez >>>>>>>> Date: Thursday 28 June 2018 at 16:19 >>>>>>>> To: "mpsilvavalent at gmail.com" >>>>>>>> Cc: Michele Neylon , "epdp-dt at icann.org" < epdp-dt at icann.org> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All cloud services offer now voice to text, and ti takes just a little bit of money and a few seconds of ai computational power: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-transcribe-scalable-and-accurate-automatic-speech-recognition/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aws.amazon.com_blogs_aws_amazon-2Dtranscribe-2Dscalable-2Dand-2Daccurate-2Dautomatic-2Dspeech-2Drecognition_&d=DwQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=mq1skb5YZgLsfca_9RuAVvgxt5VX7GyjxAfJXEdkIF0&e=) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem is not the transcription, but the process ICANN (still) uses for transcriptions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carlos Ra?? l Guti?? rrez >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +506 8837 7176 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> COSTA RICA >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> El 2018-06-28 16:10, Martin Pablo Silva Valent escribi?? : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree with Ayden that transcript are a useful feature for this kind of work at icann. And we already have automated transcript as far as I know, we can ask for opinon to staff towards cost, but is not intuitive to me that transcripts are not worthy in such a special case. The value for transparency and the ability to read debate is also very useful. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mart??n >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:29 Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I agree with most of your other points. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Michele >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [https://www.blacknight.com/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=4GoSbA0reGcerFxZphEnC1dQKCIHdPldkTeiFxX7fFA&e=) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [http://blacknight.blog/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=DRmsyb0uCS74iam9yMz3ThaRYBc8mQZCGSR89xB8biQ&e=) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Personal blog: [https://michele.blog/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=YkqOfoXTlsEuCPvLLcXTrLiREkiHct-aZhWb5EvCtKM&e=) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some thoughts: [https://ceo.hosting/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=e159ARWweTxJY7yC-i5sBUuUfYKzbmvetN1FFZ23ulA&e=) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From: Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?? rdeline >>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?? rdeline >>>>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>>>>>>>>> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please revise this text from: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please revise the text from: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Suggested text: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ayden F??rdeline >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=NcAFBsM3QosMQBljp1z92iaJHH5KK4oskW3NvlC2MAs&e=) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>>> [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=NcAFBsM3QosMQBljp1z92iaJHH5KK4oskW3NvlC2MAs&e=) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=NcAFBsM3QosMQBljp1z92iaJHH5KK4oskW3NvlC2MAs&e= >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>> >>>>>> [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=6R0KUMuvgBvUd6EXg7HhXPNxwy8KvLJCfMHP72HqkiY&e=) >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>> >>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=6R0KUMuvgBvUd6EXg7HhXPNxwy8KvLJCfMHP72HqkiY&e=) >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=6R0KUMuvgBvUd6EXg7HhXPNxwy8KvLJCfMHP72HqkiY&e= > >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at ipjustice.org Sun Jul 1 07:07:18 2018 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:07:18 -0700 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality In-Reply-To: References: <30F9624A-DFB5-44DB-86F2-F1E68D844433@gmail.com> Message-ID: Secrecy of the candidate statements is a non-starter. This is a global public policy issue of great public interest and it deserves appropriate public scrutiny. Too often people forget that we are engaging in global governance at ICANN, and ICANN?s commitment to transparency in its bylaws cannot be ignored or lowered out of concerns about being in the public eye. Accountability demands transparency in the formulation of this critical global policy. Thanks, Robin > On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:50 PM, dorothy g wrote: > > It should be made clear to candidates upfront that these statements will be in public domain. These are positions affect the community and the community has the right to know. > best > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > There should be transparency here. I actually think candidate statements (and especially conflict of interest statements) should be made public. The claim of being "sensitive to privacy" is one I am finding difficult to understand. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 20:19, Martin Pablo Silva Valent > wrote: >> Any strong opinions here? This proposal changes the general understanding of, yesterday. >> >> Martin >> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez > >>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality >>> Date: 29 June 2018 at 08:22:22 EST >>> To: epdp-dt at icann.org , Marika Konings > >>> >>> I support Donna's position, particularly as the expectation on neutrality (perceived or real) may depend on the eye of the beholder. >>> >>> As Michelle expressed during one of the meetings, who has no vested interest in the results of this PDP? >>> >>> >>> safe travels to all >>> >>> --- >>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >>> +506 8837 7176 >>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>> COSTA RICA >>> >>> >>> >>> El 2018-06-29 07:34, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt escribi?: >>> >>>> All >>>> >>>> Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. >>>> >>>> I'm also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well. >>>> >>>> If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they've undertaken to date. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Donna >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 100 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt _______________________________________________ >>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dgdorothydg at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 07:10:44 2018 From: dgdorothydg at gmail.com (dorothy g) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 04:10:44 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: <962B3BFF-5233-49F3-80E8-DEA3EBEAA501@icann.org> <5B5480B4-527C-4AEB-8DEA-90B132E9EB99@gmail.com> Message-ID: Transcription please, and they should keep up with the tech solutions available. It is not only transparency but accessibility, research and analysis. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 4:06 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > This is a cost of doing business for ICANN. > > Yes, we should continue to request that all meetings be transcribed. > > The response is very odd anyway. Why must the Verizon audio bridge be used > for transcription? Why can?t they just sent the mp3 file over to the > transcriber? > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 06:02, Ars?ne Tungali > wrote: > > Here is the estimate about the cost of meeting transcript. I think we will > need to decide if we continue pushing for ? transcription of all WG > meetings ?. We need to find balance here and move forward. > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Marika Konings > *Date:* July 1, 2018 at 12:34:17 AM GMT+2 > *To:* "Austin, Donna" , Michele Neylon - > Blacknight > *Cc:* "epdp-dt at icann.org" > *Subject:* *Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods* > > If I am not mistaken, the costs for transcripts are approx. 300 USD per > hour. It should be taken into account though that if transcripts are > expected with the current quality and turnaround time, it also means that > all calls will need to be held on a Verizon phone bridge which is more > expensive than a non-operator PGI call which is currently used for smaller > calls such as sub-team or work track meetings for which no transcripts are > requested. As such, if you decide to request that transcripts are made > available for all EPDP calls, this will need to be called out in the > ?resources expected to be available? section as it is not part of the > standard services. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > *From: *Epdp-dt on behalf of "Austin, Donna > via Epdp-dt" > *Reply-To: *Donna Austin > *Date: *Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 16:15 > *To: *Michele Neylon - Blacknight > *Cc: *"epdp-dt at icann.org" > *Subject: *Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > > > > I agree, transcripts don?t equate to transparency. > > > > It would be helpful to understand the cost and make a judgment about > benefit v cost. > > > > I think we?ve identified a number of benefits and we should also take into > account that we expect alternates for the EPDP to keep up to date with > events and it seems to me that transcripts could be the most efficient way > to do this. > > > > Donna > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < > michele at blacknight.com> wrote: > > Ayden > > Transparency does not mean transcripts. > > If you want to argue in favour of transcripts you??re welcome to do so, > but there??s a big difference > > > > Regards > > > > Michele > > > > -- > > Mr Michele Neylon > > Blacknight Solutions > > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > > https://www.blacknight.com/ > > > https://blacknight.blog/ > > > https://ceo.hosting/ > > > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > > ------------------------------- > > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty > > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, > > Ireland Company No.: 370845 > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Ayden F??rdeline > *Sent:* Saturday, June 30, 2018 3:45:19 PM > *To:* Michele Neylon - Blacknight > *Cc:* Stephanie Perrin; epdp-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > > > > While I think it is reasonable to ask how much transcription costs, > ultimately transparency is an institutional concept mandated by our own > Operating Procedures and a conceptual component of the principle of > democracy. The legitimation of any authority, including that of ICANN, > requires decisions that are reached, including the political and > non-political objectives that feed into these decisions, to be properly > understood and withstand scrutiny. Scrutiny is impossible without detailed > and accessible records. This is negotiable only up to a point. We can > negotiate over who does the transcripts or how long they take to produce > (and I don't think they need to be fast-tracked ordinarily), but we cannot > negotiate over whether transcripts are produced. > > > > This EPDP will attract a great level of interest and scrutiny from across > the ICANN community. I think it is of the highest importance for the > credibility of the GNSO that our agenda setting and decision making > processes be seen as being as transparent as possible, particularly in > light of the attention that this EPDP will generate. > > > > ??Ayden > > > > > > ???? ??? Original Message ?? ????? > > On 30 June 2018 10:38 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < > michele at blacknight.com> wrote: > > > > We don??t have an actual cost though, do we? > > > > > > Mr Michele Neylon > > > > https://www.blacknight.com/ > > > https://michele.blog > > > Intl. +353 (0)59 9183072 > > Sent from mobile so usual disclaimers about typos etc apply > > > > On 30 Jun 2018, at 14:29, Stephanie Perrin utoronto.ca> wrote: > > > > There are so many advantages...transcripts are searchable, you can do > analytics on them with easily available tools (Discourse analysis, e.g.), > you can copy and put it through google translate....a matter that is rather > basic in terms of fundamental fairness to non-english language speakers. I > think for the amount of money we are blowing on belated compliance with DP > law, this is peanuts. > > cheers Stephanie > > > > On 2018-06-29 14:16, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > > Oh yes! Specially for timing, I can read insanely faster than I have to > listen to a recording (even if I only have to listen to it once). > > > > Martin > > > > On 29 Jun 2018, at 07:00, Austin, Donna > wrote: > > > > A question for our multi-lingual colleagues. Are transcripts better/easier > for non-English speakers to review a meeting than listening to the > recording? > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jun 28, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < > michele at blacknight.com > wrote: > > > > If the transcription was ??cost effective?? then I wouldn??t have as much > of an issue with it, but I??d prefer we had some visibility on costs > before we make a commitment to it > > > > A lot of calls / meetings have a lot of spurious discussions which aren??t > adding any value. Of course there is value in the meetings overall, but you > should be able to get that from the minutes / notes of the meetings > > https://youtu.be/z_tiqlBFjbk > > > > > > > -- > > Mr Michele Neylon > > Blacknight Solutions > > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > > https://www.blacknight.com/ > > > http://blacknight.blog/ > > > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > > > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > > > ------------------------------- > > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > > > > *From: * Carlos Raul Gutierrez > *Date:* Thursday 28 June 2018 at 16:19 > *To:* "mpsilvavalent at gmail.com " > *Cc:* Michele Neylon , "epdp-dt at icann.org" < > epdp-dt at icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > > > > All cloud services offer now voice to text, and ti takes just a little bit > of money and a few seconds of ai computational power: > > > > https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-transcribe-scalable-and-accurate- > automatic-speech-recognition/ > > > > > The problem is not the transcription, but the process ICANN (still) uses > for transcriptions > > > > > > --- > > Carlos Ra?? l Guti?? rrez > > carlosraul at gutierrez.se > > +506 8837 7176 > > Aparatado 1571-1000 > > COSTA RICA > > > > El 2018-06-28 16:10, Martin Pablo Silva Valent escribi?? : > > I agree with Ayden that transcript are a useful feature for this kind of > work at icann. And we already have automated transcript as far as I know, > we can ask for opinon to staff towards cost, but is not intuitive to me > that transcripts are not worthy in such a special case. The value for > transparency and the ability to read debate is also very useful. > > > > > > Cheers, > > Mart??n > > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:29 Michele Neylon - Blacknight < > michele at blacknight.com> wrote: > > Ayden > > > > I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with > that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed > elsewhere > > > > I agree with most of your other points. > > > > Regards > > > > Michele > > > > > > -- > > Mr Michele Neylon > > Blacknight Solutions > > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > > https://www.blacknight.com/ > > > http://blacknight.blog/ > > > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > > > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > > > ------------------------------- > > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > > > > *From: * Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F ?? rdeline > > *Reply-To:* Ayden F?? rdeline > *Date:* Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 > *To:* "epdp-dt at icann.org " > *Subject:* [Epdp-dt] Working Methods > > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working > Methods please: > > > > *1)* *All* *meetings must be recorded and transcribed.* > > > > Please revise this text from: > > > > *In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups > such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, > including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration > to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support > to:* > > > > To: > > > > *All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said > recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the > ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, > including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived > mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In > addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to:* > > > > *2) Google Docs may* *only* *be used in conjunction with Google Vault.* > > > > Please revise the text from: > > > > *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to > facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs.* > > > > To: > > > > *the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to > facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the > principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the > GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it* *must* *be > used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival > purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they > preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards > in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters.* > > > > *3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial > report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's > official languages.* > > > > Suggested text: > > > > *The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official > languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal > level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), > this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the > final report, this must be a translation of the entire report.* > > > > Kind regards, > > Ayden F??rdeline > > _______________________________________________ > > Epdp-dt mailing list > > Epdp-dt at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > > _______________________________________________ > > Epdp-dt mailing list > > Epdp-dt at icann.org > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm. > icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r= > CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m= > n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s= > NcAFBsM3QosMQBljp1z92iaJHH5KK4oskW3NvlC2MAs&e= > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Epdp-dt mailing list > > Epdp-dt at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > _______________________________________________ > > Epdp-dt mailing list > > Epdp-dt at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm. > icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r= > CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m= > UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s= > 6R0KUMuvgBvUd6EXg7HhXPNxwy8KvLJCfMHP72HqkiY&e= > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 08:47:21 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 14:47:21 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality In-Reply-To: References: <30F9624A-DFB5-44DB-86F2-F1E68D844433@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, I am concerned with moving selection to SSC. While it worked fine for other appointments, I dont think it can do deliberation in such short time. I would be in both options (and I will do my best): leadership or SSC but former seems more quicker. Names of candidates and statements are also made public , in particular for review teams appointments. Best. Rafik On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 1:07 PM Robin Gross wrote: > Secrecy of the candidate statements is a non-starter. This is a global > public policy issue of great public interest and it deserves appropriate > public scrutiny. Too often people forget that we are engaging in global > governance at ICANN, and ICANN?s commitment to transparency in its bylaws > cannot be ignored or lowered out of concerns about being in the public > eye. Accountability demands transparency in the formulation of this > critical global policy. > > Thanks, > Robin > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:50 PM, dorothy g wrote: > > It should be made clear to candidates upfront that these statements will > be in public domain. These are positions affect the community and the > community has the right to know. > best > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> There should be transparency here. I actually think candidate statements >> (and especially conflict of interest statements) should be made public. The >> claim of being "sensitive to privacy" is one I am finding difficult to >> understand. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 20:19, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < >> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Any strong opinions here? This proposal changes the general understanding >> of, yesterday. >> >> Martin >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *Carlos Raul Gutierrez >> *Subject: **Re: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality* >> *Date: *29 June 2018 at 08:22:22 EST >> *To: *epdp-dt at icann.org, Marika Konings >> >> I support Donna's position, particularly as the expectation on neutrality >> (perceived or real) may depend on the eye of the beholder. >> >> As Michelle expressed during one of the meetings, who has no vested >> interest in the results of this PDP? >> >> >> safe travels to all >> --- >> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >> +506 8837 7176 >> Aparatado 1571-1000 >> COSTA RICA >> >> >> >> El 2018-06-29 07:34, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt escribi?: >> >> All >> >> Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my >> reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be >> made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the >> candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to >> have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I >> thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. >> >> I'm also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership >> team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I >> understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but >> this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well. >> >> If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on >> the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection >> etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is >> only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more >> representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as >> a result of the processes they've undertaken to date. >> >> Thanks >> >> Donna >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> >> *100* >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 08:58:07 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 14:58:07 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and balance as argument. No idea what is the right number as it is not vote-based, however we can suggest follow to follow council composition. The only drawback is that makes the team quite big in term of size. The other option is 3 per SG. We can strategize how to use that for negotiation. I guess proposing first option (council model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at the end. With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was pushing and being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I understand there is desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but wondering how much it is feasible. I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough active, something to have in mind when we will do selection. Best, Rafik On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii wrote: > Dear all, > > I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members > have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite > clear. > > Keith Drazek says in the email that: > > * Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion)* > > I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. > > Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. > > If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. > > > I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. > > > I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members > > > (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Keith, > > Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? > > If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? > > Thanks, > Arsene > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > >* On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > *> >* Thank you for preparing this, Keith. > *> >* I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). > *> >* I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. > *> >* Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." > *> >* In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." > *> >* Thank you again for working on this, Keith. > *> >* Best wishes, > *> >* Ayden F?rdeline > *> > >* ??????? Original Message ??????? > *>>* On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > wrote: > *>> >>* Hi all, > *>> >> >> >> >>* Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. > *>> >> >> >> >>* Please send comments!! > *>> >> >> >>* Thanks, > *>> >>* Keith* > > > Farzaneh > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 09:01:41 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 15:01:41 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <2e456cd4-3a81-d55f-66bc-09ad6bc8cec8@kathykleiman.com> <074c0e39-640f-3d01-b98a-a9f522f3da16@mpicc.de> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, I suggested 24hours last time and that is passed already. The comment can be shared , PC members can still review and comment. Best, Rafik On Sat, Jun 30, 2018, 8:22 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi all, > > Just a reminder, we have two weeks until this public comment window > closes. We need to share this with members soon for their input as well. > Please can you review the comment and advise when it can be shared on the > NCSG list. Thanks! > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing > > Best, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 18 June 2018 4:30 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Thanks Rafik and Ayden, > > I will go through the document in the next 23 hours (that's what left from > suggested 24h) :-) I might propose some edits, I see that the document is, > indeed, different from what is used to be a week ago, but may be some > surgery is still required (not a major one, but I would love to soften the > language a wee bit bit in parts - Ayden hope you forgive me! :)) > > Okay, the clocks start ticking for me - 23 hours. > > Cheers, > > Tanya > > On 18/06/18 16:04, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks, Rafik; please note that I have reviewed and edited the Google Doc > in order to resolve many of the comments that had been left already. So it > might not be the same version that you reviewed a week or two ago. So > please take a look when you can; I would like to get this out to NCSG > members for their input sooner rather than later. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 18 June 2018 4:01 PM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > I would like to defer sharing this for 24 hours, I think there were > several edits and we can review again. after that 24 horus passed, we can > share the draft to NCSF list. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 22:56, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Hi >> >> Are there any objections to sharing this on the NCSG-Discuss list? I >> presume not as it is just a draft, and not final, but if we share it today >> we can give members four weeks to look over it and potentially comment, >> before the PC needs to review the final version. >> >> Thanks, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 12 June 2018 2:55 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> Thanks again for the draft. >> as there are several comments and edits, I think it should be tidy-up >> first before as second round of review or comments. >> after that, we can share it in NCSG list. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 02:33, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> I have made further edits to the draft comment now. Unfortunately I did >>> not realise until half-way through that I was not in 'suggestion' mode, but >>> all my substantive, non-grammatical edits are in suggestion mode. The >>> comment is in good shape now, I think. Unless there are any concerns I >>> think we could share this with the NCSG list? >>> >>> -Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 10 June 2018 3:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Kathy, great edits! >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 10 June 2018 3:23 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>> >>> My edits now added. Kudos to all leading this for working so far ahead! >>> >>> On 6/9/2018 6:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> I've added some text to our comment on the proposed Community Travel >>> Support Guidelines: >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, but >>> please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits so that >>> we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Sun Jul 1 15:12:50 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 14:12:50 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I copy, thx! @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 28 Jun 2018, at 23:49, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi Farell, > > In this case, the calls will be in English. > > Transcriptions are taken as a verbatim record of the call, so they are done in the original language (in this instance, English). > > If they were converted to other languages they would be translated. > > I do not think it would be practical to have the transcripts translated into other languages, but I have asked that initial and final reports be translated into ICANN's seven languages. > > I hope this is helpful. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 28 June 2018 10:46 PM, Farell FOLLY wrote: > >> Dear Farzaneh, chair of the NCSG >> >> >> I am not sure to understand your point here, why transcription in other languages does not make sense? >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 28 Jun 2018, at 02:45, farzaneh badii > wrote: >>> >>> are we talking about transcription in languages other than English? >>> >>> transcription of formal meetings in English makes sense, it has been helpful. I don't think it makes sense to have transcription in other languages. but I am not sure that is being debated. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 8:41 PM Martin Pablo Silva Valent > wrote: >>> I agree that transcript in other languages would be good in almost every mesure posible, specially if we have AI and bulk prices on it. At least is worth asking staff how that impact this one time on Budget. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Mart?n >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:37 dorothy g > wrote: >>> Why are the costs high? Are we not using AI? Which languages are we transcribing to? Perhaps Mr. Neylon could tell us more about the disproportionate costs? >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >>> I will need back up here from Councillors. >>> >>> This is important. We need transcription. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight> >>>> Date: On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 19:28 >>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>> To: Ayden F?rdeline >,epdp-dt at icann.org > >>>> Cc: >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with most of your other points. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Michele >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>> >>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>> >>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>> >>>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>>> >>>> http://blacknight.blog/ >>>> >>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>> >>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>> >>>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>>> >>>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>> >>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Epdp-dt > on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline > >>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline > >>>> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>>> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org " > >>>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please revise this text from: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please revise the text from: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Suggested text: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Sun Jul 1 15:21:05 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 14:21:05 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <70D67E85-9B6A-4649-9EB3-CF2E816B5639@benin2point0.org> I will be attending but in my own capacity and don?t need visa. What is exactly the purpose of this inquiry? Or is it intended to funded travellers only? Thanks. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 29 Jun 2018, at 15:31, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > > Who is going to Barcelona? > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Terri Agnew > > > Dear all, > > > > In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in Barcelona in a timely fashion, please submit your ICANN63 Meeting database to gnso-secs at icann.org by Wednesday, 18 July 2018. > > A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. > > Please note that if you are a GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. > > Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the following into consideration: > > > > 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel to Barcelona. > > 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel team to let them know you will need a visa. > > 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa issues. > > 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. > > 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting venue. > > 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is Friday, 19 October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. > > 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. > > 8. Privately Booked Reservations: ICANN will not refund or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their reservation. > > > > Many thanks for your cooperation! > > > > With kind regards, > > Terri > > --- > > Terri Agnew > > Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: terri.agnew at icann.org > Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO > Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ > http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > > > > > > > -- > Farzaneh > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sun Jul 1 15:37:02 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 08:37:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <637093f6-e794-4566-a0fc-850cb0ea07bd@mail.utoronto.ca> When I made my intervention (sent a well marked up copy to the entire council list) my focus and concern was on not letting the business community get out of balance with the GNSO voting status quo. As we know, there is a GNSO review coming up and they have been attempting to minimize us for years, we should IMHO be watchful for every move.? expanding to 9 or some other ratio seems risky to me....the contracted parties are at 3 and 3, I think we should try to keep the GNSO voting balance, recognizing that we have the advisory councils in there which does put us further into a minority position. My colleague Tara Whalen, former tech expert from the Office of the PRivacy COmmissioner of Canada and now at Google, has expressed interest in joining from SSAC.? This would be a very good choice...and help push back the commercial anti-cybercrime guys at SSAC from overwhelming us.? Just letting you know who I have been talking to.? I would agree with FIk that getting more people is not as important as getting the right people. cheers Steph PS for those who were not paying attention to the high interest panel, I note that Fab Vayra pointed out his firm Perkins Cole is representing the top 50 countries in the world on privacy....now as I have tried to point out, we should be careful what we ask for in training.? I dont want the privacy counsel at Perkins Cole coming in to brief the EPDP.... And to repeat, the COE is willing to assign Peter Kimpian to this group.? That would be great. On 2018-07-01 01:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and > balance as argument. No idea what is the right number as it is not > vote-based, however we can suggest follow to follow council > composition. The only drawback is that makes the team quite big in > term of size. The other option is 3 per SG. We can strategize how to > use that for negotiation. I guess proposing first option (council > model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at the end. > > With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, > ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was > pushing and being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I > understand there is desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but > wondering how much it is feasible. > > I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough > active, something to have in mind when we will do selection. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii > wrote: > > Dear all, > > I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council > members have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership > structure quite clear. > > Keith Drazek says in the email that: > > /Attached is my updated version of the membership structure > (following this mornings discussion)/ > > I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to > allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 > members. > > Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want > to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC > mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has > weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of > membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. > > If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead > of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed > (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this > issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be > corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal > to CSG epdp members. > > I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs > to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list > and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. > > I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members > but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to > flag that CSG is getting 9 members > > (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue > been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has > been then sorry for the unnecessary email. > > > > > > > > Dear Keith, > > Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? > > If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? > > Thanks, > Arsene > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > >/On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline ferdeline.com > wrote: />//>/Thank you for preparing this, Keith. />//>/I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members > each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted > to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). />//>/I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the > original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How > each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its > own membership composition is its own prerogative. />//>/Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing > consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to > "Stakeholder Group." />//>/In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH > must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of > consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be > disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." />//>/Thank you again for working on this, Keith. />//>/Best wishes, />//>/Ayden F?rdeline />//>//>/??????? Original Message ??????? />>/On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt icann.org > wrote: />>//>>/Hi all, />>//>>//>>//>>//>>/Attached is my updated version of the membership structure > (following this mornings discussion), and also some very > preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. />>//>>//>>//>>//>>/Please send comments!! />>//>>//>>//>>/Thanks, />>//>>/Keith/ > > > Farzaneh > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 1 17:43:13 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 10:43:13 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: <637093f6-e794-4566-a0fc-850cb0ea07bd@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <637093f6-e794-4566-a0fc-850cb0ea07bd@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <8WTK7zvJwvbhIY89MgJ6yKfffwBDR32cIuyr4V54D0OWS8sUc4xH3fcgX2Ttf1hc0WhThoC1DxLOipLh8XcqpCROs6eO_zESbBEXBKZbFmU=@ferdeline.com> Peter Kimpian would be a great asset on the EPDP. Incidentally, I see that Perkins Coie has a privacy practice now: https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/practices/government-regulatory-law/security-privacy-law/index.html ?Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 1 July 2018 2:37 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > When I made my intervention (sent a well marked up copy to the entire council list) my focus and concern was on not letting the business community get out of balance with the GNSO voting status quo. As we know, there is a GNSO review coming up and they have been attempting to minimize us for years, we should IMHO be watchful for every move. expanding to 9 or some other ratio seems risky to me....the contracted parties are at 3 and 3, I think we should try to keep the GNSO voting balance, recognizing that we have the advisory councils in there which does put us further into a minority position. > > My colleague Tara Whalen, former tech expert from the Office of the PRivacy COmmissioner of Canada and now at Google, has expressed interest in joining from SSAC. This would be a very good choice...and help push back the commercial anti-cybercrime guys at SSAC from overwhelming us. Just letting you know who I have been talking to. I would agree with FIk that getting more people is not as important as getting the right people. > > cheers Steph > > PS for those who were not paying attention to the high interest panel, I note that Fab Vayra pointed out his firm Perkins Cole is representing the top 50 countries in the world on privacy....now as I have tried to point out, we should be careful what we ask for in training. I dont want the privacy counsel at Perkins Cole coming in to brief the EPDP.... > > And to repeat, the COE is willing to assign Peter Kimpian to this group. That would be great. > > On 2018-07-01 01:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and balance as argument. No idea what is the right number as it is not vote-based, however we can suggest follow to follow council composition. The only drawback is that makes the team quite big in term of size. The other option is 3 per SG. We can strategize how to use that for negotiation. I guess proposing first option (council model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at the end. >> >> With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was pushing and being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I understand there is desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but wondering how much it is feasible. >> >> I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough active, something to have in mind when we will do selection. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite clear. >>> >>> Keith Drazek says in the email that: >>> >>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion) >>> >>> I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. >>> >>> Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. >>> >>> If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. >>> >>> I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. >>> >>> I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members >>> >>> (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. >>> >>> Dear Keith, >>> >>> Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? >>> >>> If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Arsene >>> ----------------- >>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>> >>>> >>> >>> On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline < >>> [icann at ferdeline.com](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt) >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> Thank you for preparing this, Keith. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> Thank you again for working on this, Keith. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> >>>>> >>> >>> On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt < >>> [epdp-dt at icann.org](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt) >>>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> Please send comments!! >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> -- >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 1 17:49:23 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 10:49:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality In-Reply-To: References: <30F9624A-DFB5-44DB-86F2-F1E68D844433@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6qlifmdMww3EQr69QaHSahwRDdXKzD2gwEVavkJN-I0ObKayzGX7hVUzrx7Np7RLw2795BY6FmyENsevq2L47RLaTtdbqikZ1pq1f9XLJZU=@ferdeline.com> My gut reaction is that I agree on leaving this with Council leadership, but it's a hard argument to make. The SSC's charter does sound like it is whom we should be deferring to. How would you counter such an argument, Rafik? Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 1 July 2018 7:47 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > I am concerned with moving selection to SSC. While it worked fine for other appointments, I dont think it can do deliberation in such short time. I would be in both options (and I will do my best): leadership or SSC but former seems more quicker. > Names of candidates and statements are also made public , in particular for review teams appointments. > > Best. > > Rafik > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 1:07 PM Robin Gross wrote: > >> Secrecy of the candidate statements is a non-starter. This is a global public policy issue of great public interest and it deserves appropriate public scrutiny. Too often people forget that we are engaging in global governance at ICANN, and ICANN?s commitment to transparency in its bylaws cannot be ignored or lowered out of concerns about being in the public eye. Accountability demands transparency in the formulation of this critical global policy. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:50 PM, dorothy g wrote: >>> >>> It should be made clear to candidates upfront that these statements will be in public domain. These are positions affect the community and the community has the right to know. >>> best >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> There should be transparency here. I actually think candidate statements (and especially conflict of interest statements) should be made public. The claim of being "sensitive to privacy" is one I am finding difficult to understand. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 20:19, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>>> >>>>> Any strong opinions here? This proposal changes the general understanding of, yesterday. >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality >>>>>> Date: 29 June 2018 at 08:22:22 EST >>>>>> To: epdp-dt at icann.org, Marika Konings >>>>>> >>>>>> I support Donna's position, particularly as the expectation on neutrality (perceived or real) may depend on the eye of the beholder. >>>>>> >>>>>> As Michelle expressed during one of the meetings, who has no vested interest in the results of this PDP? >>>>>> >>>>>> safe travels to all >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>>>>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >>>>>> +506 8837 7176 >>>>>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>>>>> COSTA RICA >>>>>> >>>>>> El 2018-06-29 07:34, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt escribi?: >>>>>> >>>>>>> All >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they've undertaken to date. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Donna >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 100 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 1 17:54:16 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 10:54:16 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods In-Reply-To: References: <962B3BFF-5233-49F3-80E8-DEA3EBEAA501@icann.org> <5B5480B4-527C-4AEB-8DEA-90B132E9EB99@gmail.com> Message-ID: We can't surrender on this point. Transcription is a cost of doing business for any body setting policy and, quite frankly, it isn't even expensive. -Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 1 July 2018 6:10 AM, dorothy g wrote: > Transcription please, and they should keep up with the tech solutions available. It is not only transparency but accessibility, research and analysis. > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 4:06 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> This is a cost of doing business for ICANN. >> >> Yes, we should continue to request that all meetings be transcribed. >> >> The response is very odd anyway. Why must the Verizon audio bridge be used for transcription? Why can?t they just sent the mp3 file over to the transcriber? >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 06:02, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >> >>> Here is the estimate about the cost of meeting transcript. I think we will need to decide if we continue pushing for ? transcription of all WG meetings ?. We need to find balance here and move forward. >>> >>> ----------------- >>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>> about.me/ArseneTungali >>> +243 993810967 >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: Marika Konings >>>> Date: July 1, 2018 at 12:34:17 AM GMT+2 >>>> To: "Austin, Donna" , Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>> Cc: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >>>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>> >>>> If I am not mistaken, the costs for transcripts are approx. 300 USD per hour. It should be taken into account though that if transcripts are expected with the current quality and turnaround time, it also means that all calls will need to be held on a Verizon phone bridge which is more expensive than a non-operator PGI call which is currently used for smaller calls such as sub-team or work track meetings for which no transcripts are requested. As such, if you decide to request that transcripts are made available for all EPDP calls, this will need to be called out in the ?resources expected to be available? section as it is not part of the standard services. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Marika >>>> >>>> From: Epdp-dt on behalf of "Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt" >>>> Reply-To: Donna Austin >>>> Date: Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 16:15 >>>> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>> Cc: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >>>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>> >>>> I agree, transcripts don?t equate to transparency. >>>> >>>> It would be helpful to understand the cost and make a judgment about benefit v cost. >>>> >>>> I think we?ve identified a number of benefits and we should also take into account that we expect alternates for the EPDP to keep up to date with events and it seems to me that transcripts could be the most efficient way to do this. >>>> >>>> Donna >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 2:04 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> Transparency does not mean transcripts. >>>>> >>>>> If you want to argue in favour of transcripts you??re welcome to do so, but there??s a big difference >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Michele >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>> >>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>> >>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>> >>>>> [https://www.blacknight.com/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwQFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=_a7oilwKn7uQn1DHLumOB4RgWqvCLM6h3N6-Gtf3HV4&e=) >>>>> >>>>> [https://blacknight.blog/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwQFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=u5mw2fW73MfL0MBZTVqd0JmIu89J-MwDLwC50pzWrx8&e=) >>>>> >>>>> [https://ceo.hosting/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwQFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=ul62VtbssiPHWzbHnMaYSLnOFMHikitEVEY0h68qhw8&e=) >>>>> >>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>>> >>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>>> >>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, >>>>> >>>>> Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> From: Ayden F??rdeline >>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 3:45:19 PM >>>>> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>>> Cc: Stephanie Perrin; epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>> >>>>> While I think it is reasonable to ask how much transcription costs, ultimately transparency is an institutional concept mandated by our own Operating Procedures and a conceptual component of the principle of democracy. The legitimation of any authority, including that of ICANN, requires decisions that are reached, including the political and non-political objectives that feed into these decisions, to be properly understood and withstand scrutiny. Scrutiny is impossible without detailed and accessible records. This is negotiable only up to a point. We can negotiate over who does the transcripts or how long they take to produce (and I don't think they need to be fast-tracked ordinarily), but we cannot negotiate over whether transcripts are produced. >>>>> >>>>> This EPDP will attract a great level of interest and scrutiny from across the ICANN community. I think it is of the highest importance for the credibility of the GNSO that our agenda setting and decision making processes be seen as being as transparent as possible, particularly in light of the attention that this EPDP will generate. >>>>> >>>>> ??Ayden >>>>> >>>>> ???? ??? Original Message ?? ????? >>>>> >>>>> On 30 June 2018 10:38 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We don??t have an actual cost though, do we? >>>>>> >>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>> >>>>>> [https://www.blacknight.com/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwMFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=_a7oilwKn7uQn1DHLumOB4RgWqvCLM6h3N6-Gtf3HV4&e=) >>>>>> >>>>>> [https://michele.blog](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog&d=DwMFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=kPqrsVOUMfbSFbBbDq0cXB0zyyXbppoplH18sw03Ddg&e=) >>>>>> >>>>>> Intl. +353 (0)59 9183072 >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from mobile so usual disclaimers about typos etc apply >>>>>> >>>>>> On 30 Jun 2018, at 14:29, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> There are so many advantages...transcripts are searchable, you can do analytics on them with easily available tools (Discourse analysis, e.g.), you can copy and put it through google translate....a matter that is rather basic in terms of fundamental fairness to non-english language speakers. I think for the amount of money we are blowing on belated compliance with DP law, this is peanuts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cheers Stephanie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2018-06-29 14:16, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh yes! Specially for timing, I can read insanely faster than I have to listen to a recording (even if I only have to listen to it once). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 29 Jun 2018, at 07:00, Austin, Donna wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A question for our multi-lingual colleagues. Are transcripts better/easier for non-English speakers to review a meeting than listening to the recording? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If the transcription was ??cost effective?? then I wouldn??t have as much of an issue with it, but I??d prefer we had some visibility on costs before we make a commitment to it >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A lot of calls / meetings have a lot of spurious discussions which aren??t adding any value. Of course there is value in the meetings overall, but you should be able to get that from the minutes / notes of the meetings >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [https://youtu.be/z_tiqlBFjbk](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_z-5FtiqlBFjbk&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=vvqDp0M6V7T0SB--m1mrTtrib1LiJ0yd_1kuKrixVWs&e=) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [https://www.blacknight.com/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=4GoSbA0reGcerFxZphEnC1dQKCIHdPldkTeiFxX7fFA&e=) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [http://blacknight.blog/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=DRmsyb0uCS74iam9yMz3ThaRYBc8mQZCGSR89xB8biQ&e=) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Personal blog: [https://michele.blog/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=YkqOfoXTlsEuCPvLLcXTrLiREkiHct-aZhWb5EvCtKM&e=) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some thoughts: [https://ceo.hosting/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=e159ARWweTxJY7yC-i5sBUuUfYKzbmvetN1FFZ23ulA&e=) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez >>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday 28 June 2018 at 16:19 >>>>>>>>>> To: "mpsilvavalent at gmail.com" >>>>>>>>>> Cc: Michele Neylon , "epdp-dt at icann.org" < epdp-dt at icann.org> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All cloud services offer now voice to text, and ti takes just a little bit of money and a few seconds of ai computational power: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-transcribe-scalable-and-accurate-automatic-speech-recognition/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aws.amazon.com_blogs_aws_amazon-2Dtranscribe-2Dscalable-2Dand-2Daccurate-2Dautomatic-2Dspeech-2Drecognition_&d=DwQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=mq1skb5YZgLsfca_9RuAVvgxt5VX7GyjxAfJXEdkIF0&e=) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The problem is not the transcription, but the process ICANN (still) uses for transcriptions >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Carlos Ra?? l Guti?? rrez >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +506 8837 7176 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> COSTA RICA >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> El 2018-06-28 16:10, Martin Pablo Silva Valent escribi?? : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Ayden that transcript are a useful feature for this kind of work at icann. And we already have automated transcript as far as I know, we can ask for opinon to staff towards cost, but is not intuitive to me that transcripts are not worthy in such a special case. The value for transparency and the ability to read debate is also very useful. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mart??n >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 19:29 Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with the transcription of all meetings. The costs involved with that are disproportionately high and ICANN funds would be better directed elsewhere >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with most of your other points. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Michele >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mr Michele Neylon >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Blacknight Solutions >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [https://www.blacknight.com/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=4GoSbA0reGcerFxZphEnC1dQKCIHdPldkTeiFxX7fFA&e=) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [http://blacknight.blog/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=DRmsyb0uCS74iam9yMz3ThaRYBc8mQZCGSR89xB8biQ&e=) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Personal blog: [https://michele.blog/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=YkqOfoXTlsEuCPvLLcXTrLiREkiHct-aZhWb5EvCtKM&e=) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Some thoughts: [https://ceo.hosting/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=e159ARWweTxJY7yC-i5sBUuUfYKzbmvetN1FFZ23ulA&e=) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Epdp-dt on behalf of Ayden F?? rdeline >>>>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: Ayden F?? rdeline >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday 27 June 2018 at 17:34 >>>>>>>>>>>> To: "epdp-dt at icann.org" >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] Working Methods >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to request several revisions be made to the EPDP Working Methods please: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) All meetings must be recorded and transcribed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please revise this text from: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In addition to the standard services provided to GNSO PDP Working Groups such as policy staff support, mailing lists and regular conference calls, including recording and transcription where needed (frequency and duration to be decided by EPDP team), the EPDP team will need appropriate support to: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> All calls of the EPDP must be recorded and transcribed, and said recordings and call transcriptions must be publicly accessible from the ICANN website. Standard support offered to GNSO PDP Working Groups, including but not limited to the provision of a wiki space, archived mailing lists, and conference call facilities, will be required. In addition, the EPDP will need appropriate support to: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Google Docs may only be used in conjunction with Google Vault. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please revise the text from: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, such as the wiki and Google docs. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the EPDP Team should consider which tools provide the best flexibility to facilitate online collaboration, but it must do so in accordance with the principles of accountability and transparency that are so important to the GNSO. If Google Docs or other G Suite products are used, it must be used in conjunction with Google Vault, which logs data for archival purposes. Similarly, if other tools are used, they may be used only if they preserve information to a level that meets or exceeds eDiscovery standards in California, being the location of ICANN's headquarters. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Translation of executive summary and recommendations of the initial report for public comment, and of the entire final report, into ICANN's official languages. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggested text: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The substantive work of the EPDP must be translated into ICANN's official languages in order to provide non-English-fluent stakeholders with an equal level of access to review the work of the EPDP. For the initial report(s), this must consist of the executive summary and recommendations, and for the final report, this must be a translation of the entire report. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden F??rdeline >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=NcAFBsM3QosMQBljp1z92iaJHH5KK4oskW3NvlC2MAs&e=) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>>>>> [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=NcAFBsM3QosMQBljp1z92iaJHH5KK4oskW3NvlC2MAs&e=) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=n3C0DJgkQIyr0HoJHZTeIN36Y0AO0HE-eO2cj94PCdo&s=NcAFBsM3QosMQBljp1z92iaJHH5KK4oskW3NvlC2MAs&e= >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ______________________________ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _________________ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> listinfo/epdp-dt](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=6R0KUMuvgBvUd6EXg7HhXPNxwy8KvLJCfMHP72HqkiY&e=) >>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMFoQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=6R0KUMuvgBvUd6EXg7HhXPNxwy8KvLJCfMHP72HqkiY&e=) >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=UZRtiJnLGE7sDcDgH7ykgEHhzQ4NW2goWx1l8AeXQew&s=6R0KUMuvgBvUd6EXg7HhXPNxwy8KvLJCfMHP72HqkiY&e= >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 17:56:00 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 10:56:00 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: <70D67E85-9B6A-4649-9EB3-CF2E816B5639@benin2point0.org> References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <70D67E85-9B6A-4649-9EB3-CF2E816B5639@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Just for funded councilors. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:21 AM Farell FOLLY wrote: > I will be attending but in my own capacity and don?t need visa. What is > exactly the purpose of this inquiry? Or is it intended to funded travellers > only? > > Thanks. > > @__f_f__ > > > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > > On 29 Jun 2018, at 15:31, farzaneh badii wrote: > > > > > Who is going to Barcelona? > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Terri Agnew > > > Dear all, > > > > In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in Barcelona in a timely > fashion, please submit your ICANN63 Meeting database to > gnso-secs at icann.org by *Wednesday, 18 July 2018.* > > A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC > review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed > reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. > > Please note that if you are *a GNSO supported traveler with a designated > hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you*, > please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. > > Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of > fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the > following into consideration: > > > > 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming > travel to Barcelona. > > 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make > sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel > team to let them know you will need a visa. > > 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by > case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day > deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel > as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa > issues. > > 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours > and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. > > 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN > meeting venue. > > 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is > Friday, 19 October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. > > 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done > at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN > hotel confirmation has be sent to them. > > 8. *Privately Booked Reservations*: ICANN will not refund > or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a > replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel > their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their > reservation. > > > > Many thanks for your cooperation! > > > > With kind regards, > > *Terri * > > * ---* > > *Terri Agnew* > > Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > *Email:* terri.agnew at icann.org > > *Skype ID:* terri.agnew.icann > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and > visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > > > Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO > > Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > > > > > > > -- > Farzaneh > -- > Farzaneh > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Sun Jul 1 18:56:12 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 11:56:12 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: <637093f6-e794-4566-a0fc-850cb0ea07bd@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <637093f6-e794-4566-a0fc-850cb0ea07bd@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi All, This "equal representation by Constituency" goes back to the bad old days of early ICANN. There were no SGs (as there not yet competitive registries and registrars) and we were always outnumbered and outvoted 3:1 -- IPC, BC (IPC business reps), and ISPC (IPC tech people) -- and then NCUC.? It's utterly unfair and of course designed to let them do unbalanced things. In Panama, we of course heard the rallying cry for representation of "WHOIS users" (esp. from the GAC). Hence the call for excessive constituency representation, I assume. But GDPR is about the fundamental rights of data subjects -- and that's who we represent-- registrants. So, of course, we need data subject representatives present and in the room in fair and balanced numbers to represent registrant rights and interests. Fair is fair. And transcriptions -- absolutely critical to a) following the discussion of the EPDP by the world, and b) for those laboring in the trenches of EPDP to rapidly catch up when they miss a meeting (as it will be absolutely impossible to attend them all. It is far, far faster to review a transcript then to listen to the whole of the MP3 recording. In the few RPM WG calls I have had to miss, it's always the transcript that I scan to catch up with the points made. Real volunteers needs these tools -- and so does the Community watching this ultra-rapid process. And chair statements -- of course public!? That way the entire world can lobby them in public (because so much of the world is already lobbying these potential chair candidates in private). Tx you for your labors in this area -- and fingers crossed for the critical corrections you are fighting to make! Best, Kathy p.s. CC'ing Milton as he will remember the "three constituencies that were one" -- my name for the IPC/BC/ISPC of the early days. On 7/1/2018 8:37 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > When I made my intervention (sent a well marked up copy to the entire > council list) my focus and concern was on not letting the business > community get out of balance with the GNSO voting status quo.? As we > know, there is a GNSO review coming up and they have been attempting > to minimize us for years, we should IMHO be watchful for every move.? > expanding to 9 or some other ratio seems risky to me....the contracted > parties are at 3 and 3, I think we should try to keep the GNSO voting > balance, recognizing that we have the advisory councils in there which > does put us further into a minority position. > > My colleague Tara Whalen, former tech expert from the Office of the > PRivacy COmmissioner of Canada and now at Google, has expressed > interest in joining from SSAC.? This would be a very good choice...and > help push back the commercial anti-cybercrime guys at SSAC from > overwhelming us.? Just letting you know who I have been talking to.? I > would agree with FIk that getting more people is not as important as > getting the right people. > > cheers Steph > > PS for those who were not paying attention to the high interest panel, > I note that Fab Vayra pointed out his firm Perkins Cole is > representing the top 50 countries in the world on privacy....now as I > have tried to point out, we should be careful what we ask for in > training.? I dont want the privacy counsel at Perkins Cole coming in > to brief the EPDP.... > > And to repeat, the COE is willing to assign Peter Kimpian to this > group.? That would be great. > > On 2018-07-01 01:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and >> balance as argument. No idea what is the right number as it is not >> vote-based, however we can suggest follow to follow council >> composition. The only drawback is that makes the team quite big in >> term of size. The other option is 3 per SG. We can strategize how to >> use that for negotiation. I guess proposing first option (council >> model)? can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at the end. >> >> With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, >> ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was >> pushing and being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I >> understand there is desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but >> wondering how much it is feasible. >> >> I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough >> active, something to have in mind when we will do selection. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii > > wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council >> members have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership >> structure quite clear. >> >> Keith Drazek says in the email that: >> >> /Attached is my updated version of the membership structure >> (following this mornings discussion)/ >> >> I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to >> allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only >> 3 members. >> >> Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want >> to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC >> mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has >> weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of >> membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. >> >> If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead >> of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed >> (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this >> issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be >> corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be >> equal to CSG epdp members. >> >> I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs >> to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list >> and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. >> >> I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members >> but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to >> flag that CSG is getting 9 members >> >> (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue >> been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If >> has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Keith, >> >> Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? >> >> If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? >> >> Thanks, >> Arsene >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> >/On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > ferdeline.com > >> wrote: />//>/Thank you for preparing this, Keith. />//>/I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members >> each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted >> to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). />//>/I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the >> original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. >> How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint >> its own membership composition is its own prerogative. />//>/Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing >> consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to >> "Stakeholder Group." />//>/In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH >> must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of >> consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be >> disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." />//>/Thank you again for working on this, Keith. />//>/Best wishes, />//>/Ayden F?rdeline />//>//>/??????? Original Message ??????? />>/On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > icann.org > wrote: />>//>>/Hi all, />>//>>//>>//>>//>>/Attached is my updated version of the membership structure >> (following this mornings discussion), and also some very >> preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. />>//>>//>>//>>//>>/Please send comments!! />>//>>//>>//>>/Thanks, />>//>>/Keith/ >> >> >> Farzaneh >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 1 20:10:23 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 13:10:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] First draft - Community Travel Support Guidelines In-Reply-To: References: <074c0e39-640f-3d01-b98a-a9f522f3da16@mpicc.de> Message-ID: Thanks Rafik. I have now shared the comment on the NCSG Discuss list for further community input. Despite being shared on our list for six weeks it is disappointing some people subscribed to this list waited until the very moment it went to the Discuss list to raise their concerns with the comment. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 08:01, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > I suggested 24hours last time and that is passed already. The comment can be shared , PC members can still review and comment. > > Best, > > Rafik > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018, 8:22 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Just a reminder, we have two weeks until this public comment window closes. We need to share this with members soon for their input as well. Please can you review the comment and advise when it can be shared on the NCSG list. Thanks! >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Best, >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 18 June 2018 4:30 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: >> >>> Thanks Rafik and Ayden, >>> >>> I will go through the document in the next 23 hours (that's what left from suggested 24h) :-) I might propose some edits, I see that the document is, indeed, different from what is used to be a week ago, but may be some surgery is still required (not a major one, but I would love to soften the language a wee bit bit in parts - Ayden hope you forgive me! :)) >>> >>> Okay, the clocks start ticking for me - 23 hours. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Tanya >>> >>> On 18/06/18 16:04, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks, Rafik; please note that I have reviewed and edited the Google Doc in order to resolve many of the comments that had been left already. So it might not be the same version that you reviewed a week or two ago. So please take a look when you can; I would like to get this out to NCSG members for their input sooner rather than later. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 18 June 2018 4:01 PM, Rafik Dammak [](mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to defer sharing this for 24 hours, I think there were several edits and we can review again. after that 24 horus passed, we can share the draft to NCSF list. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le lun. 18 juin 2018 ? 22:56, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> Are there any objections to sharing this on the NCSG-Discuss list? I presume not as it is just a draft, and not final, but if we share it today we can give members four weeks to look over it and potentially comment, before the PC needs to review the final version. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 12 June 2018 2:55 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for the draft. >>>>>>> as there are several comments and edits, I think it should be tidy-up first before as second round of review or comments. >>>>>>> after that, we can share it in NCSG list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 02:33, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have made further edits to the draft comment now. Unfortunately I did not realise until half-way through that I was not in 'suggestion' mode, but all my substantive, non-grammatical edits are in suggestion mode. The comment is in good shape now, I think. Unless there are any concerns I think we could share this with the NCSG list? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>> On 10 June 2018 3:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Kathy, great edits! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>> On 10 June 2018 3:23 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My edits now added. Kudos to all leading this for working so far ahead! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 6:32 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've added some text to our comment on the proposed Community Travel Support Guidelines: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The deadline for submission of this comment is still six weeks away, but please can you review this rough draft and add your comments/edits so that we can share this with members soon (this week ideally). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sun Jul 1 20:42:37 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:42:37 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <70D67E85-9B6A-4649-9EB3-CF2E816B5639@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: <633f96ae-d2f9-a89f-2526-f3863427bc3e@mail.utoronto.ca> basically this happens at every meeting Farell, the secretariat checks with SG leaders to get their list of who will be funded.? This is our first chance to substitute names if we know a councillor is not coming. Stephanie On 2018-07-01 10:56, farzaneh badii wrote: > Just for funded councilors. > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:21 AM Farell FOLLY > wrote: > > I will be attending but in my own capacity and don?t need visa. > What is exactly the purpose of this inquiry? Or is it intended to > funded travellers only? > > Thanks. > > @__f_f__ > > > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > >> On 29 Jun 2018, at 15:31, farzaneh badii >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Who is going to Barcelona? >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Terri Agnew >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in Barcelona in >> a timely fashion, please submit your ICANN63 Meeting database to >> gnso-secs at icann.org by *Wednesday, 18 >> July 2018.* >> >> A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and >> the OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to >> allow for confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and >> travel arrangements. >> >> Please note that if you are *a GNSO supported traveler with a >> designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is >> automatically secured for you*, please DO NOT book your own hotel >> as it is un-reimbursable. >> >> Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest >> of fairness and in light of budget restrictions?we would like you >> to take the following into consideration: >> >> 1.Respond?timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel >> toBarcelona. >> >> 2.If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to >> acquire your visa immediately.?Please contact the ICANN travel >> team to let them know you will need a visa. >> >> 3.Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case >> basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day >> deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the >> same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able >> to attend due to visa issues. >> >> 4.If possible please book?direct travel requests.?Detours and >> multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. >> >> 5.Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting >> venue. >> >> 6.Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is Friday, >> 19 October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. >> >> 7.If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at >> their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the >> ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. >> >> 8./Privately Booked Reservations/:?ICANN will not refund or take >> over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a >> replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to >> cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over >> their reservation. >> >> ?Many thanks for your cooperation! >> >> With kind regards, >> >> *Terri * >> >> *????????????---* >> >> *Terri Agnew* >> >> Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> *Email:*terri.agnew at icann.org >> >> *Skype ID:*terri.agnew.icann >> >> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive >> courses?and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >> >> >> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO >> >> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ >> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 1 21:29:24 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:29:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: <637093f6-e794-4566-a0fc-850cb0ea07bd@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Unfortunately it is now becoming clearer as to why the Contracted Parties House does not want transcripts (and the original charter, now thankfully revised, suggested closed meetings with no recordings). And hiding behind the cries of privacy to request that the names of potential chairs be kept secret to all but three people... if this is the future of policy development at ICANN, it does not bode well for the future of the multistakeholder model. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 1 July 2018 5:56 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi All, > > This "equal representation by Constituency" goes back to the bad old days of early ICANN. There were no SGs (as there not yet competitive registries and registrars) and we were always outnumbered and outvoted 3:1 -- IPC, BC (IPC business reps), and ISPC (IPC tech people) -- and then NCUC. It's utterly unfair and of course designed to let them do unbalanced things. > > In Panama, we of course heard the rallying cry for representation of "WHOIS users" (esp. from the GAC). Hence the call for excessive constituency representation, I assume. But GDPR is about the fundamental rights of data subjects -- and that's who we represent-- registrants. So, of course, we need data subject representatives present and in the room in fair and balanced numbers to represent registrant rights and interests. Fair is fair. > > And transcriptions -- absolutely critical to a) following the discussion of the EPDP by the world, and b) for those laboring in the trenches of EPDP to rapidly catch up when they miss a meeting (as it will be absolutely impossible to attend them all. It is far, far faster to review a transcript then to listen to the whole of the MP3 recording. In the few RPM WG calls I have had to miss, it's always the transcript that I scan to catch up with the points made. Real volunteers needs these tools -- and so does the Community watching this ultra-rapid process. > > And chair statements -- of course public! That way the entire world can lobby them in public (because so much of the world is already lobbying these potential chair candidates in private). > > Tx you for your labors in this area -- and fingers crossed for the critical corrections you are fighting to make! > > Best, Kathy > > p.s. CC'ing Milton as he will remember the "three constituencies that were one" -- my name for the IPC/BC/ISPC of the early days. > > On 7/1/2018 8:37 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> When I made my intervention (sent a well marked up copy to the entire council list) my focus and concern was on not letting the business community get out of balance with the GNSO voting status quo. As we know, there is a GNSO review coming up and they have been attempting to minimize us for years, we should IMHO be watchful for every move. expanding to 9 or some other ratio seems risky to me....the contracted parties are at 3 and 3, I think we should try to keep the GNSO voting balance, recognizing that we have the advisory councils in there which does put us further into a minority position. >> >> My colleague Tara Whalen, former tech expert from the Office of the PRivacy COmmissioner of Canada and now at Google, has expressed interest in joining from SSAC. This would be a very good choice...and help push back the commercial anti-cybercrime guys at SSAC from overwhelming us. Just letting you know who I have been talking to. I would agree with FIk that getting more people is not as important as getting the right people. >> >> cheers Steph >> >> PS for those who were not paying attention to the high interest panel, I note that Fab Vayra pointed out his firm Perkins Cole is representing the top 50 countries in the world on privacy....now as I have tried to point out, we should be careful what we ask for in training. I dont want the privacy counsel at Perkins Cole coming in to brief the EPDP.... >> >> And to repeat, the COE is willing to assign Peter Kimpian to this group. That would be great. >> >> On 2018-07-01 01:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and balance as argument. No idea what is the right number as it is not vote-based, however we can suggest follow to follow council composition. The only drawback is that makes the team quite big in term of size. The other option is 3 per SG. We can strategize how to use that for negotiation. I guess proposing first option (council model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at the end. >>> >>> With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was pushing and being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I understand there is desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but wondering how much it is feasible. >>> >>> I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough active, something to have in mind when we will do selection. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite clear. >>>> >>>> Keith Drazek says in the email that: >>>> >>>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion) >>>> >>>> I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. >>>> >>>> Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. >>>> >>>> If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. >>>> >>>> I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. >>>> >>>> I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members >>>> >>>> (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. >>>> >>>> Dear Keith, >>>> >>>> Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? >>>> >>>> If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Arsene >>>> ----------------- >>>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline < >>>> [icann at ferdeline.com](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt) >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you for preparing this, Keith. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you again for working on this, Keith. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt < >>>> [epdp-dt at icann.org](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt) >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Please send comments!! >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Keith >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient > Virus-free. [www.avast.com](https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient) > > #DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 03:32:41 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:32:41 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality In-Reply-To: <6qlifmdMww3EQr69QaHSahwRDdXKzD2gwEVavkJN-I0ObKayzGX7hVUzrx7Np7RLw2795BY6FmyENsevq2L47RLaTtdbqikZ1pq1f9XLJZU=@ferdeline.com> References: <30F9624A-DFB5-44DB-86F2-F1E68D844433@gmail.com> <6qlifmdMww3EQr69QaHSahwRDdXKzD2gwEVavkJN-I0ObKayzGX7hVUzrx7Np7RLw2795BY6FmyENsevq2L47RLaTtdbqikZ1pq1f9XLJZU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, it is difficult. The council rarely appointed for the case of GNSO PDP WG, while it did for CCWG and CWG cases. The SSC charter doesn't include a language about WGs but review teams, empowered community structures and so on as that was an addition brought by IANA stewardship transition, adding a chair selection task would be a precedent and may encourage doing that in future for any WG. as it is an exception, we should try to keep it limited. we can also argue about timing. SSC would need more time to proceed and get prepared following its charter. Best, Rafik Le dim. 1 juil. 2018 ? 23:49, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > My gut reaction is that I agree on leaving this with Council leadership, > but it's a hard argument to make. The SSC's charter does sound like it is > whom we should be deferring to. How would you counter such an argument, > Rafik? > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 1 July 2018 7:47 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > I am concerned with moving selection to SSC. While it worked fine for > other appointments, I dont think it can do deliberation in such short time. > I would be in both options (and I will do my best): leadership or SSC but > former seems more quicker. > Names of candidates and statements are also made public , in particular > for review teams appointments. > > Best. > > Rafik > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 1:07 PM Robin Gross wrote: > >> Secrecy of the candidate statements is a non-starter. This is a global >> public policy issue of great public interest and it deserves appropriate >> public scrutiny. Too often people forget that we are engaging in global >> governance at ICANN, and ICANN?s commitment to transparency in its bylaws >> cannot be ignored or lowered out of concerns about being in the public >> eye. Accountability demands transparency in the formulation of this >> critical global policy. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:50 PM, dorothy g wrote: >> >> It should be made clear to candidates upfront that these statements will >> be in public domain. These are positions affect the community and the >> community has the right to know. >> best >> >> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> There should be transparency here. I actually think candidate statements >>> (and especially conflict of interest statements) should be made public. The >>> claim of being "sensitive to privacy" is one I am finding difficult to >>> understand. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 20:19, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < >>> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Any strong opinions here? This proposal changes the general >>> understanding of, yesterday. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> *From: *Carlos Raul Gutierrez >>> *Subject: **Re: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality* >>> *Date: *29 June 2018 at 08:22:22 EST >>> *To: *epdp-dt at icann.org, Marika Konings >>> >>> I support Donna's position, particularly as the expectation on >>> neutrality (perceived or real) may depend on the eye of the beholder. >>> >>> As Michelle expressed during one of the meetings, who has no vested >>> interest in the results of this PDP? >>> >>> >>> safe travels to all >>> --- >>> >>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >>> +506 8837 7176 >>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>> COSTA RICA >>> >>> >>> >>> El 2018-06-29 07:34, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt escribi?: >>> >>> All >>> >>> Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my >>> reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be >>> made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the >>> candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to >>> have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I >>> thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. >>> >>> I'm also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership >>> team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I >>> understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but >>> this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well. >>> >>> If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure >>> on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection >>> etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is >>> only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more >>> representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as >>> a result of the processes they've undertaken to date. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Donna >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *100* >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 08:10:25 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 07:10:25 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality In-Reply-To: References: <4c4331f4-7f13-ffb5-f5ea-90c11293886e@mail.utoronto.ca> <911BC622-5BD2-4F9F-89BB-7976FC6D3957@team.neustar> Message-ID: I agree with Susan and would encourage us to go for council leadership team instead of the SSC, also for the reasons Rafik pointed out on this issue ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Susan Kawaguchi Date: 2018-07-02 4:31 GMT+01:00 Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality To: "Austin, Donna" Cc: "epdp-dt at icann.org" Hi Donna, We discussed using the SSC process but the council thought it may take to long. The quickest we were able to make a selection was 2 weeks. The other issue to consider is that the SSC consists of members from the SG and C's. Rafik and I are the only councilors on the committee. The SSC charter requires that we have full consensus on all decisions which usually takes more time. The members take their instructions from their SG or C so more information about the candidate will be shared broadly. I agree the SSC has created a good working process and I am willing to lead the SSC in the selection if necessary. Best regards, Susan On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Austin, Donna wrote: > I concede on the confidentiality aspect, but I would prefer to have the > selection process done by the SSC. Rafik is part of that process > already?Susan, does this address your request for leadership input? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > > I agree that this should be a public process. I think we should try as > much as possible to encourage candidates to have a public statement about > why they believe they can be a neutral and effective chair. In this > respect, I would consider the parameters of the decision to resemble an > election more than a hiring decision. > > Lobbying will be inevitable, there are very few folks with no skin in the > game, so it would be better to have more transparency. > > Stephanie > On 2018-06-30 11:28, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > > Hi Donna, > > If the council would like to rethink the use of the SSC for this selection > I am open to it but would think the Leadership team should be very > involved. > > I disagree on the need for confidentiality of the candidates names. We > did discuss not disclosing any details of the candidates beyond the SOI > which is required of all of us. > > Although, GDPR concerns privacy ICANN operates best with transparency. > > Best regards, > > Susan > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt < > epdp-dt at icann.org> wrote: > >> All >> >> Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my >> reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be >> made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the >> candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to >> have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I >> thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. >> >> I?m also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership >> team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I >> understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but >> this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well. >> >> If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on >> the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection >> etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is >> only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more >> representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as >> a result of the processes they?ve undertaken to date. >> >> Thanks >> >> Donna >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *100* >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing listEpdp-dt at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.ican > n.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDA > LC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=lrO > BxX_pToVCqJ8R10NHnbkXCXtiufdStlOp0AxaXWQ&s=jOrzbhLCxGuq_ > P8jKkA_0nCX1xeF8vhbWmzEgbNYNFA&e= > > _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Mon Jul 2 08:19:46 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 07:19:46 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: <633f96ae-d2f9-a89f-2526-f3863427bc3e@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <70D67E85-9B6A-4649-9EB3-CF2E816B5639@benin2point0.org> <633f96ae-d2f9-a89f-2526-f3863427bc3e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: OK See you all there. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 1 Jul 2018, at 19:42, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > basically this happens at every meeting Farell, the secretariat checks with SG leaders to get their list of who will be funded. This is our first chance to substitute names if we know a councillor is not coming. > > Stephanie > On 2018-07-01 10:56, farzaneh badii wrote: >> Just for funded councilors. >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:21 AM Farell FOLLY > wrote: >> I will be attending but in my own capacity and don?t need visa. What is exactly the purpose of this inquiry? Or is it intended to funded travellers only? >> >> Thanks. >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 29 Jun 2018, at 15:31, farzaneh badii > wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Who is going to Barcelona? >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Terri Agnew >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in Barcelona in a timely fashion, please submit your ICANN63 Meeting database to gnso-secs at icann.org by Wednesday, 18 July 2018. >>> >>> A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. >>> >>> Please note that if you are a GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. >>> >>> Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the following into consideration: >>> >>> >>> 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel to Barcelona. >>> >>> 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel team to let them know you will need a visa. >>> >>> 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa issues. >>> >>> 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. >>> >>> 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting venue. >>> >>> 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is Friday, 19 October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. >>> >>> 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. >>> >>> 8. Privately Booked Reservations: ICANN will not refund or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their reservation. >>> >>> >>> Many thanks for your cooperation! >>> >>> >>> With kind regards, >>> >>> Terri >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Terri Agnew >>> >>> Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator >>> >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>> Email: terri.agnew at icann.org >>> Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann >>> >>> >>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO >>> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ >>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> -- >> Farzaneh >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Mon Jul 2 08:38:27 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 07:38:27 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: <637093f6-e794-4566-a0fc-850cb0ea07bd@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <1CB56DB5-B20A-4B3E-83E6-A1D421C137B2@benin2point0.org> Ayden, This is really unfortunate ! To me it just seems that ICANN give more privileges for business related issues than customer/community issues, what is really unfair in a multi-stakeholder model. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 1 Jul 2018, at 20:29, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Unfortunately it is now becoming clearer as to why the Contracted Parties House does not want transcripts (and the original charter, now thankfully revised, suggested closed meetings with no recordings). And hiding behind the cries of privacy to request that the names of potential chairs be kept secret to all but three people... if this is the future of policy development at ICANN, it does not bode well for the future of the multistakeholder model. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 1 July 2018 5:56 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> This "equal representation by Constituency" goes back to the bad old days of early ICANN. There were no SGs (as there not yet competitive registries and registrars) and we were always outnumbered and outvoted 3:1 -- IPC, BC (IPC business reps), and ISPC (IPC tech people) -- and then NCUC. It's utterly unfair and of course designed to let them do unbalanced things. >> >> In Panama, we of course heard the rallying cry for representation of "WHOIS users" (esp. from the GAC). Hence the call for excessive constituency representation, I assume. But GDPR is about the fundamental rights of data subjects -- and that's who we represent-- registrants. So, of course, we need data subject representatives present and in the room in fair and balanced numbers to represent registrant rights and interests. Fair is fair. >> >> And transcriptions -- absolutely critical to a) following the discussion of the EPDP by the world, and b) for those laboring in the trenches of EPDP to rapidly catch up when they miss a meeting (as it will be absolutely impossible to attend them all. It is far, far faster to review a transcript then to listen to the whole of the MP3 recording. In the few RPM WG calls I have had to miss, it's always the transcript that I scan to catch up with the points made. Real volunteers needs these tools -- and so does the Community watching this ultra-rapid process. >> >> And chair statements -- of course public! That way the entire world can lobby them in public (because so much of the world is already lobbying these potential chair candidates in private). >> >> Tx you for your labors in this area -- and fingers crossed for the critical corrections you are fighting to make! >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> p.s. CC'ing Milton as he will remember the "three constituencies that were one" -- my name for the IPC/BC/ISPC of the early days. >> >> >> >> On 7/1/2018 8:37 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> When I made my intervention (sent a well marked up copy to the entire council list) my focus and concern was on not letting the business community get out of balance with the GNSO voting status quo. As we know, there is a GNSO review coming up and they have been attempting to minimize us for years, we should IMHO be watchful for every move. expanding to 9 or some other ratio seems risky to me....the contracted parties are at 3 and 3, I think we should try to keep the GNSO voting balance, recognizing that we have the advisory councils in there which does put us further into a minority position. >>> >>> My colleague Tara Whalen, former tech expert from the Office of the PRivacy COmmissioner of Canada and now at Google, has expressed interest in joining from SSAC. This would be a very good choice...and help push back the commercial anti-cybercrime guys at SSAC from overwhelming us. Just letting you know who I have been talking to. I would agree with FIk that getting more people is not as important as getting the right people. >>> >>> cheers Steph >>> >>> PS for those who were not paying attention to the high interest panel, I note that Fab Vayra pointed out his firm Perkins Cole is representing the top 50 countries in the world on privacy....now as I have tried to point out, we should be careful what we ask for in training. I dont want the privacy counsel at Perkins Cole coming in to brief the EPDP.... >>> >>> And to repeat, the COE is willing to assign Peter Kimpian to this group. That would be great. >>> >>> On 2018-07-01 01:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and balance as argument. No idea what is the right number as it is not vote-based, however we can suggest follow to follow council composition. The only drawback is that makes the team quite big in term of size. The other option is 3 per SG. We can strategize how to use that for negotiation. I guess proposing first option (council model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at the end. >>>> >>>> With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was pushing and being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I understand there is desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but wondering how much it is feasible. >>>> >>>> I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough active, something to have in mind when we will do selection. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii > wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite clear. >>>> >>>> Keith Drazek says in the email that: >>>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion) >>>> I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. >>>> Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. >>>> If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. >>>> >>>> I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. >>>> >>>> >>>> I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members >>>> >>>> >>>> (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Keith, >>>> >>>> Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? >>>> >>>> If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Arsene >>>> ----------------- >>>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>>> >>>> > On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Thank you for preparing this, Keith. >>>> > >>>> > I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). >>>> > >>>> > I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. >>>> > >>>> > Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." >>>> > >>>> > In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." >>>> > >>>> > Thank you again for working on this, Keith. >>>> > >>>> > Best wishes, >>>> > >>>> > Ayden F?rdeline >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> >> On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi all, >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Please send comments!! >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks, >>>> >> >>>> >> Keith >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> >> >> Virus-free. www.avast.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jul 2 12:36:02 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 05:36:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality In-Reply-To: References: <4c4331f4-7f13-ffb5-f5ea-90c11293886e@mail.utoronto.ca> <911BC622-5BD2-4F9F-89BB-7976FC6D3957@team.neustar> Message-ID: Hi Arsene, I think Susan is saying just the opposite, she is the Chair of the SSC and would be happy to lead this process? For the reasons that Rafik has indicated let's try to get Council leadership to make this selection... Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 2 July 2018 7:10 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > I agree with Susan and would encourage us to go for council leadership team instead of the SSC, also for the reasons Rafik pointed out on this issue > ------------------------ > *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* > Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org), > CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](https://www.smart-kitoko.com/), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com) > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Susan Kawaguchi > Date: 2018-07-02 4:31 GMT+01:00 > Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality > To: "Austin, Donna" > Cc: "epdp-dt at icann.org" > > Hi Donna, > > We discussed using the SSC process but the council thought it may take to long. The quickest we were able to make a selection was 2 weeks. The other issue to consider is that the SSC consists of members from the SG and C's. Rafik and I are the only councilors on the committee. > > The SSC charter requires that we have full consensus on all decisions which usually takes more time. The members take their instructions from their SG or C so more information about the candidate will be shared broadly. > > I agree the SSC has created a good working process and I am willing to lead the SSC in the selection if necessary. > > Best regards, > Susan > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Austin, Donna wrote: > >> I concede on the confidentiality aspect, but I would prefer to have the selection process done by the SSC. Rafik is part of that process already?Susan, does this address your request for leadership input? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> I agree that this should be a public process. I think we should try as much as possible to encourage candidates to have a public statement about why they believe they can be a neutral and effective chair. In this respect, I would consider the parameters of the decision to resemble an election more than a hiring decision. >>> >>> Lobbying will be inevitable, there are very few folks with no skin in the game, so it would be better to have more transparency. >>> >>> Stephanie >>> >>> On 2018-06-30 11:28, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Donna, >>>> >>>> If the council would like to rethink the use of the SSC for this selection I am open to it but would think the Leadership team should be very involved. >>>> >>>> I disagree on the need for confidentiality of the candidates names. We did discuss not disclosing any details of the candidates beyond the SOI which is required of all of us. >>>> >>>> Although, GDPR concerns privacy ICANN operates best with transparency. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Susan >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt wrote: >>>> >>>>> All >>>>> >>>>> Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. >>>>> >>>>> I?m also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well. >>>>> >>>>> If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they?ve undertaken to date. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Donna >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> 100 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>> [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMDaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=lrOBxX_pToVCqJ8R10NHnbkXCXtiufdStlOp0AxaXWQ&s=jOrzbhLCxGuq_P8jKkA_0nCX1xeF8vhbWmzEgbNYNFA&e=) >>>> >>>> ______________________________ >>>> >>>> _________________ >>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>> >>>> [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l >>>> >>>> istinfo/epdp-dt](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwMDaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=lrOBxX_pToVCqJ8R10NHnbkXCXtiufdStlOp0AxaXWQ&s=jOrzbhLCxGuq_P8jKkA_0nCX1xeF8vhbWmzEgbNYNFA&e=) >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=lrOBxX_pToVCqJ8R10NHnbkXCXtiufdStlOp0AxaXWQ&s=jOrzbhLCxGuq_P8jKkA_0nCX1xeF8vhbWmzEgbNYNFA&e= > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 12:39:42 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 11:39:42 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality In-Reply-To: References: <4c4331f4-7f13-ffb5-f5ea-90c11293886e@mail.utoronto.ca> <911BC622-5BD2-4F9F-89BB-7976FC6D3957@team.neustar> Message-ID: I see it differently, what she said, Ayden. She says if Council wants the SSC to do it, she will be happy but she seems pushing it away and wants to have Council run the process. I am for the later for the reasons Rafik mentioned and some of those Susan herself mentioned with regards to the timing. That's my understanding... ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) 2018-07-02 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ayden F?rdeline : > Hi Arsene, > > I think Susan is saying just the opposite, she is the Chair of the SSC and > would be happy to lead this process? For the reasons that Rafik has > indicated let's try to get Council leadership to make this selection... > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 2 July 2018 7:10 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > > I agree with Susan and would encourage us to go for council leadership > team instead of the SSC, also for the reasons Rafik pointed out on this > issue > ------------------------ > **Ars?ne Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa > Forum * > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > & Mexico > ) > - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger > - ICANN's GNSO Council > Member. AFRINIC Fellow > (Mauritius > > )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - > Internet Freedom. > > Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English > ) and (French > ) > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Susan Kawaguchi > Date: 2018-07-02 4:31 GMT+01:00 > Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality > To: "Austin, Donna" > Cc: "epdp-dt at icann.org" > > > Hi Donna, > > We discussed using the SSC process but the council thought it may take to > long. The quickest we were able to make a selection was 2 weeks. The > other issue to consider is that the SSC consists of members from the SG and > C's. Rafik and I are the only councilors on the committee. > > The SSC charter requires that we have full consensus on all decisions > which usually takes more time. The members take their instructions from > their SG or C so more information about the candidate will be shared > broadly. > > I agree the SSC has created a good working process and I am willing to > lead the SSC in the selection if necessary. > > Best regards, > > Susan > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Austin, Donna > wrote: > >> I concede on the confidentiality aspect, but I would prefer to have the >> selection process done by the SSC. Rafik is part of that process >> already?Susan, does this address your request for leadership input? >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >> I agree that this should be a public process. I think we should try as >> much as possible to encourage candidates to have a public statement about >> why they believe they can be a neutral and effective chair. In this >> respect, I would consider the parameters of the decision to resemble an >> election more than a hiring decision. >> >> Lobbying will be inevitable, there are very few folks with no skin in the >> game, so it would be better to have more transparency. >> >> Stephanie >> On 2018-06-30 11:28, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: >> >> Hi Donna, >> >> If the council would like to rethink the use of the SSC for this >> selection I am open to it but would think the Leadership team should be >> very involved. >> >> I disagree on the need for confidentiality of the candidates names. We >> did discuss not disclosing any details of the candidates beyond the SOI >> which is required of all of us. >> >> Although, GDPR concerns privacy ICANN operates best with transparency. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Susan >> >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt < >> epdp-dt at icann.org> wrote: >> >> All >>> >>> Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my >>> reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be >>> made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the >>> candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to >>> have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I >>> thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. >>> >>> I?m also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership >>> team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I >>> understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but >>> this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well. >>> >>> If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure >>> on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection >>> etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is >>> only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more >>> representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as >>> a result of the processes they?ve undertaken to date. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Donna >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *100* >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing listEpdp-dt at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.ican >> n.org_mailman_listinfo_epdp-2Ddt&d=DwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC >> _lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=lrOBx >> X_pToVCqJ8R10NHnbkXCXtiufdStlOp0AxaXWQ&s=jOrzbhLCxGuq_P8jKkA >> _0nCX1xeF8vhbWmzEgbNYNFA&e= >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 13:26:47 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 19:26:47 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, this is the input from BC on PDP 3.0 report. there is an extension for SG/C to send their comments on the report. we have a google doc to populate with an NCSG input https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit . Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Marie Pattullo Date: lun. 2 juil. 2018 ? 19:13 Subject: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper To: GNSO Council List Dear all, Trust you had a good journey home! As requested during our meetings last week, please see below the input that the BC provided on PDP 3.0. We?re of course more than happy to discuss further. Kind regards, Marie *From:* Marie Pattullo *Sent:* Friday, June 8, 2018 4:42 PM *To:* 'Marika Konings' ; Heather Forrest < haforrestesq at gmail.com>; Austin, Donna ; 'Rafik Dammak' *Cc:* bc-excomm at icann.org *Subject:* RE: GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper All, Many thanks for this. As requested, input from the BC is below. Kind regards Marie The BC welcomes the discussion of how to improve the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Ensuring an efficient and effective way to gather, synthesise and advance community-based policies is a vital part of ICANN?s DNA. As a starting point, not only has the current average timeline for PDPs increased, so has the amount of working groups, reviews and policy dossiers ? not least the unprecedented EPDP/Temporary Specification work. A balance must be found between allowing enough time and community input on the one hand and an efficient and timely process on the other; we thank the Council leadership and staff for setting out the challenges in a concise and realistic way. Taking the potential incremental improvements in order: *Working Group Dynamics * - *Terms of participation for WG members*: while a ?Commitment of Participation? template may be worthwhile, in practice this is unlikely to have a practical effect on participation. We already have standards of behaviour but experience shows that this does not stop bad faith or even the wilfully unpleasant, and at a lesser level one person?s joke is another?s affront. This would have to be policed carefully. - *Consider alternatives to open WG model*: designation by SO/AC/SG/Cs should help to ensure more objectivity and expertise, but we would add that the designee should also act as the conduit for their designator?s views and not in their personal capacity. Individuals must be allowed to join as either participants or observers to preserve the multistakeholder model; would it however be possible to consider ?weighted voting? in contentious matters (so more ?weight? for designees)? For example, could the Chair call a vote on a discussion point when it seems that deadlock has been reached based on ideology rather than reason and community benefit? - *Limitations to joining of new members after a certain time*: if this is to happen, new observers must still be allowed to join and newsletters issued regularly to ensure transparency. The decision to widen/restrict the membership should not fall on the PDP leadership alone, but on Council as a whole to prevent unwarranted pressure/capture of the Chairs. *WG Leadership* - *Capture vs. Consensus Playbook*: any practical tools and support to ensure effective and efficient leadership should be seen as a positive. Experienced Chairs/leadership would be the most obvious drafters to share hands-on experience and solutions. - *Active role for and clear description of Council liaison to PDP WGs*: support. - *Document expectations for WG leaders that outlines role & responsibilities as well as minimum skills / expertise required*: support. *Complexity of Subject Matter * - *Creation of Cooperative Teams*: while we understand the good faith reasoning, this goes against the idea of the ?Commitment of Participation? and could develop into a shortcut for those who do not/cannot engage who then rely on these Teams to do extra work/outreach to compensate for their lack of engagement. It would also lead to further complexity by adding another structural element that could cause confusion about who really is the shaping the PDP ? the drafting team, the subgroup, the Chair, Cooperative Team..? It could also be vulnerable to claims that the Teams were misdirecting the members/ misrepresenting the discussions. ? *PDP Plenary or Model PDP*: full support. *Consensus Building* - *Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 (Standard Methodology for decision making)*: general support but a note of caution: ?Consensus? means different things to different organisations and at the beginning of a PDP it would be helpful to remind everyone about what ?consensus? will mean in the PDP process. However there is value in considering consensus-building lessons and approaches used by other organisations. - *Document positions at the outset*: possible, but would this not extend the opening phases of the PDP before substantive work could start? And whose positions ? those of members, or aggregate views? There will also by default be sub-positions of positions. We are not convinced that this would be of benefit. *Role of Council as Manager of the PDP* - *Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces*: full support. - *Notification to Council of changes in work plan*: full support. - *Review of Chair(s*): this leads to a further question ? do we need a policy on the appointment of Chairs in the first place? While we support the idea of a ?process... that allows a WG to challenge and/or replace its leadership team? this should be carefully crafted. The 12-month reappointment seems sensible. - *Make better use of existing flexibility in PDP to allow for data gathering, chartering and termination when it is clear that no consensus can be achieved*: support. - *Independent conflict resolution*: We are concerned that an independent conflict resolution process has the potential of becoming the default way to resolve seemingly intractable WG disagreements rather than forcing WG members to do the hard work of consensus-building and employing the toolkit of possible responses mentioned under WG Leadership. After two years under the revised PDP process, we might then reconsider the desirability/need for recourse to independent conflict resolution. Further - who would do this? If external ? cost implications? Could it fall under the remit of (e.g.) the Standing Selection Committee? Whoever it is, this should be known to all WGs from the outset. - *Criteria for PDP WG Updates*: support. - *Resource reporting for PDP WGs*: support. *From:* council *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings *Sent:* Friday, May 11, 2018 11:24 PM *To:* council at gnso.icann.org *Subject:* [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper *Sending on behalf of the Council leadership* Dear colleagues, Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. Best regards, GNSO Council leadership team *Marika Konings* *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages . * _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 13:33:00 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 19:33:00 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, to be practical and make those suggestions prior to the drafting team call in Thursday, are you ok with the suggestions (suggesting option 1 first) I made? if possible, someone else can share them to the drafting team list. we got to be clear about the proposal here so other parties know what is unacceptable for us which is not just a matter of wording. Best, Rafik Le dim. 1 juil. 2018 ? 14:58, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi, > > As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and balance as > argument. No idea what is the right number as it is not vote-based, however > we can suggest follow to follow council composition. The only drawback is > that makes the team quite big in term of size. The other option is 3 per > SG. We can strategize how to use that for negotiation. I guess proposing > first option (council model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at > the end. > > With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, > ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was pushing and > being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I understand there is > desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but wondering how much it is > feasible. > > I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough active, > something to have in mind when we will do selection. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members >> have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite >> clear. >> >> Keith Drazek says in the email that: >> >> * Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion)* >> >> I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. >> >> Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. >> >> If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. >> >> >> I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. >> >> >> I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members >> >> >> (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Keith, >> >> Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? >> >> If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? >> >> Thanks, >> Arsene >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> >* On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >> *> >* Thank you for preparing this, Keith. >> *> >* I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). >> *> >* I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. >> *> >* Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." >> *> >* In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." >> *> >* Thank you again for working on this, Keith. >> *> >* Best wishes, >> *> >* Ayden F?rdeline >> *> > >* ??????? Original Message ??????? >> *>>* On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > wrote: >> *>> >>* Hi all, >> *>> >> >> >> >>* Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. >> *>> >> >> >> >>* Please send comments!! >> *>> >> >> >>* Thanks, >> *>> >>* Keith* >> >> >> Farzaneh >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jul 2 13:39:28 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 06:39:28 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafik, I just want to clarify, to make sure I understand what is option 1 - is this balanced representation? If so, [does this email](https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/2018-June/000088.html) I sent to the drafting team (and which attracted no responses) cover it, or should I send another? Thanks Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 2 July 2018 12:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > to be practical and make those suggestions prior to the drafting team call in Thursday, are you ok with the suggestions (suggesting option 1 first) I made? > if possible, someone else can share them to the drafting team list. we got to be clear about the proposal here so other parties know what is unacceptable for us which is not just a matter of wording. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 1 juil. 2018 ? 14:58, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > >> Hi, >> >> As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and balance as argument. No idea what is the right number as it is not vote-based, however we can suggest follow to follow council composition. The only drawback is that makes the team quite big in term of size. The other option is 3 per SG. We can strategize how to use that for negotiation. I guess proposing first option (council model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at the end. >> >> With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was pushing and being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I understand there is desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but wondering how much it is feasible. >> >> I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough active, something to have in mind when we will do selection. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite clear. >>> >>> Keith Drazek says in the email that: >>> >>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion) >>> >>> I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. >>> >>> Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. >>> >>> If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. >>> >>> I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. >>> >>> I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members >>> >>> (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. >>> >>> Dear Keith, >>> >>> Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? >>> >>> If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Arsene >>> ----------------- >>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>> >>>> >>> >>> On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline < >>> [icann at ferdeline.com](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt) >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> Thank you for preparing this, Keith. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> Thank you again for working on this, Keith. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> >>>>> >>> >>> On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt < >>> [epdp-dt at icann.org](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt) >>>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> Please send comments!! >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 13:39:47 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 19:39:47 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: <637093f6-e794-4566-a0fc-850cb0ea07bd@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <637093f6-e794-4566-a0fc-850cb0ea07bd@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, for Peter Kimpian, I understand that he won't be suggested as coming from GAC but as an independent expert/advisor on data protection? I think there is language about an expert who can be invited by WG, also to make difference about independent resources we are requesting too at resources section. Best, Rafik Le dim. 1 juil. 2018 ? 21:37, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > When I made my intervention (sent a well marked up copy to the entire > council list) my focus and concern was on not letting the business > community get out of balance with the GNSO voting status quo. As we know, > there is a GNSO review coming up and they have been attempting to minimize > us for years, we should IMHO be watchful for every move. expanding to 9 or > some other ratio seems risky to me....the contracted parties are at 3 and > 3, I think we should try to keep the GNSO voting balance, recognizing that > we have the advisory councils in there which does put us further into a > minority position. > > My colleague Tara Whalen, former tech expert from the Office of the > PRivacy COmmissioner of Canada and now at Google, has expressed interest in > joining from SSAC. This would be a very good choice...and help push back > the commercial anti-cybercrime guys at SSAC from overwhelming us. Just > letting you know who I have been talking to. I would agree with FIk that > getting more people is not as important as getting the right people. > > cheers Steph > > PS for those who were not paying attention to the high interest panel, I > note that Fab Vayra pointed out his firm Perkins Cole is representing the > top 50 countries in the world on privacy....now as I have tried to point > out, we should be careful what we ask for in training. I dont want the > privacy counsel at Perkins Cole coming in to brief the EPDP.... > > And to repeat, the COE is willing to assign Peter Kimpian to this group. > That would be great. > On 2018-07-01 01:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and balance as > argument. No idea what is the right number as it is not vote-based, however > we can suggest follow to follow council composition. The only drawback is > that makes the team quite big in term of size. The other option is 3 per > SG. We can strategize how to use that for negotiation. I guess proposing > first option (council model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at > the end. > > With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, > ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was pushing and > being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I understand there is > desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but wondering how much it is > feasible. > > I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough active, > something to have in mind when we will do selection. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members >> have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite >> clear. >> >> Keith Drazek says in the email that: >> >> * Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion)* >> >> I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. >> >> Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. >> >> If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. >> >> I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. >> >> I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members >> >> (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Keith, >> >> Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? >> >> If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? >> >> Thanks, >> Arsene >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> >* On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >> *> >* Thank you for preparing this, Keith. >> *> >* I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). >> *> >* I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. >> *> >* Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." >> *> >* In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." >> *> >* Thank you again for working on this, Keith. >> *> >* Best wishes, >> *> >* Ayden F?rdeline >> *> > >* ??????? Original Message ??????? >> *>>* On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > wrote: >> *>> >>* Hi all, >> *>> >> >> >> >>* Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. >> *>> >> >> >> >>* Please send comments!! >> *>> >> >> >>* Thanks, >> *>> >>* Keith* >> >> >> Farzaneh >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 13:44:20 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 19:44:20 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, thanks, option 1 is what I would call "council model", i.e. following exactly the distribution of council, 6-6-3-3. my gut feeling is that we will end up with a 3-per-SG. I think we need to be explicit about the distribution, equality and balance are principles but open of course to "interpretation" from other parties. I also added a suggestion about AC representation. Best, Rafik Le lun. 2 juil. 2018 ? 19:39, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Hi Rafik, > > I just want to clarify, to make sure I understand what is option 1 - is > this balanced representation? If so, does this email > I sent to > the drafting team (and which attracted no responses) cover it, or should I > send another? Thanks > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 2 July 2018 12:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > to be practical and make those suggestions prior to the drafting team call > in Thursday, are you ok with the suggestions (suggesting option 1 first) I > made? > if possible, someone else can share them to the drafting team list. we got > to be clear about the proposal here so other parties know what is > unacceptable for us which is not just a matter of wording. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 1 juil. 2018 ? 14:58, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi, >> >> As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and balance >> as argument. No idea what is the right number as it is not vote-based, >> however we can suggest follow to follow council composition. The only >> drawback is that makes the team quite big in term of size. The other option >> is 3 per SG. We can strategize how to use that for negotiation. I guess >> proposing first option (council model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for >> each) at the end. >> >> With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, >> ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was pushing and >> being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I understand there is >> desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but wondering how much it is >> feasible. >> >> I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough >> active, something to have in mind when we will do selection. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members >>> have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite >>> clear. >>> >>> Keith Drazek says in the email that: >>> >>> * Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion)* >>> >>> I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. >>> >>> Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. >>> >>> If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. >>> >>> >>> I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. >>> >>> >>> I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members >>> >>> >>> (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Keith, >>> >>> Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? >>> >>> If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Arsene >>> ----------------- >>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>> >>> >* On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >>> *> >* Thank you for preparing this, Keith. >>> *> >* I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). >>> *> >* I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. >>> *> >* Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." >>> *> >* In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." >>> *> >* Thank you again for working on this, Keith. >>> *> >* Best wishes, >>> *> >* Ayden F?rdeline >>> *> > >* ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> *>>* On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > wrote: >>> *>> >>* Hi all, >>> *>> >> >> >> >>* Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. >>> *>> >> >> >> >>* Please send comments!! >>> *>> >> >> >>* Thanks, >>> *>> >>* Keith* >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jul 2 13:48:50 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 06:48:50 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Rafik, I understand now. I will put this suggestion forward. ?Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 2 July 2018 12:44 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > thanks, > option 1 is what I would call "council model", i.e. following exactly the distribution of council, 6-6-3-3. my gut feeling is that we will end up with a 3-per-SG. > I think we need to be explicit about the distribution, equality and balance are principles but open of course to "interpretation" from other parties. > I also added a suggestion about AC representation. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 2 juil. 2018 ? 19:39, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Hi Rafik, >> >> I just want to clarify, to make sure I understand what is option 1 - is this balanced representation? If so, [does this email](https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/2018-June/000088.html) I sent to the drafting team (and which attracted no responses) cover it, or should I send another? Thanks >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 2 July 2018 12:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> to be practical and make those suggestions prior to the drafting team call in Thursday, are you ok with the suggestions (suggesting option 1 first) I made? >>> if possible, someone else can share them to the drafting team list. we got to be clear about the proposal here so other parties know what is unacceptable for us which is not just a matter of wording. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le dim. 1 juil. 2018 ? 14:58, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and balance as argument. No idea what is the right number as it is not vote-based, however we can suggest follow to follow council composition. The only drawback is that makes the team quite big in term of size. The other option is 3 per SG. We can strategize how to use that for negotiation. I guess proposing first option (council model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at the end. >>>> >>>> With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was pushing and being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I understand there is desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but wondering how much it is feasible. >>>> >>>> I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough active, something to have in mind when we will do selection. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite clear. >>>>> >>>>> Keith Drazek says in the email that: >>>>> >>>>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion) >>>>> >>>>> I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. >>>>> >>>>> Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. >>>>> >>>>> If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. >>>>> >>>>> I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. >>>>> >>>>> I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members >>>>> >>>>> (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. >>>>> >>>>> Dear Keith, >>>>> >>>>> Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? >>>>> >>>>> If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Arsene >>>>> ----------------- >>>>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline < >>>>> [icann at ferdeline.com](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt) >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for preparing this, Keith. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you again for working on this, Keith. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt < >>>>> [epdp-dt at icann.org](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt) >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please send comments!! >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Keith >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 2 15:33:37 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:33:37 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality In-Reply-To: References: <30F9624A-DFB5-44DB-86F2-F1E68D844433@gmail.com> <6qlifmdMww3EQr69QaHSahwRDdXKzD2gwEVavkJN-I0ObKayzGX7hVUzrx7Np7RLw2795BY6FmyENsevq2L47RLaTtdbqikZ1pq1f9XLJZU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <62c444f7-a505-78ea-3934-56514eeecaab@mail.utoronto.ca> I think we can justify it (and I believe it is necessary) because this is the first time the interim spec power was used, and it is addressing the single biggest policy issue we have repeated to resolve. Tight council control, and greater transparency, is therefore necessary. cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2018-07-01 20:32, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > it is difficult. The council rarely appointed for the case of GNSO PDP > WG, while it did for CCWG and CWG? cases. The SSC charter doesn't > include a language about WGs but review teams, empowered community > structures and so on as that was an addition brought by IANA > stewardship transition, adding a chair selection task would be a > precedent and may encourage doing that in future for any WG. > as it is an exception, we should try to keep it limited. we can also > argue about timing. SSC would need more time to proceed and get > prepared following its charter. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le?dim. 1 juil. 2018 ??23:49, Ayden F?rdeline > a ?crit?: > > My gut reaction is that I agree on leaving this with Council > leadership, but it's a hard argument to make. The SSC's charter > does sound like it is whom we should be deferring to. How would > you counter such an argument, Rafik? > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 1 July 2018 7:47 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am concerned with moving selection to SSC. While it worked fine >> for other appointments, I dont think it can do deliberation in >> such short time. I would be in both options (and I will do my >> best): leadership or SSC but former seems more quicker. >> Names of candidates and statements are also made public , in >> particular for review teams appointments. >> >> Best. >> >> Rafik >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 1:07 PM Robin Gross > > wrote: >> >> Secrecy of the candidate statements is a non-starter.? This >> is a global public policy issue of great public interest and >> it deserves appropriate public scrutiny. Too often people >> forget that we are engaging in global governance at ICANN, >> and ICANN?s commitment to transparency in its bylaws cannot >> be ignored or lowered out of concerns about being in the >> public eye.? Accountability demands transparency in the >> formulation of this critical global policy. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:50 PM, dorothy g >>> > wrote: >>> >>> It should be made clear to candidates upfront that these >>> statements will be in public domain. These are positions >>> affect the community and the community has the right to know. >>> best >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ayden F?rdeline >>> > wrote: >>> >>> There should be transparency here. I actually think >>> candidate statements (and especially conflict of >>> interest statements) should be made public. The claim of >>> being "sensitive to privacy" is one I am finding >>> difficult to understand. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 20:19, Martin Pablo Silva Valent >>> >> > wrote: >>>> Any strong opinions here? This proposal changes the >>>> general understanding of, yesterday. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>> *From: *Carlos Raul Gutierrez >>>> > >>>>> *Subject: **Re: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality* >>>>> *Date: *29 June 2018 at 08:22:22 EST >>>>> *To: *epdp-dt at icann.org , >>>>> Marika Konings >>>> > >>>>> >>>>> I support Donna's position, particularly as the >>>>> expectation on neutrality (perceived or real) may >>>>> depend on the eye of the beholder. >>>>> >>>>> As Michelle expressed during one of the meetings, who >>>>> has no vested interest in the results of this PDP? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> safe travels to all >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>>>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >>>>> +506 8837 7176 >>>>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>>>> COSTA RICA >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> El 2018-06-29 07:34, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt escribi?: >>>>> >>>>>> All >>>>>> >>>>>> Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I >>>>>> want to express my reservations about the agreement >>>>>> that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I >>>>>> believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, >>>>>> the candidates should at least have the option to >>>>>> decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made >>>>>> public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I >>>>>> thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm also disappointed that the selection task falls >>>>>> to the leadership team. We established a standing >>>>>> selection committee for this purpose. I understand >>>>>> the concerns about being able to undertake the task >>>>>> quickly, but this same pressure will be on the >>>>>> leadership team as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the candidate names are public this also puts >>>>>> considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms >>>>>> of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We >>>>>> may also have potential conflicts of interest arise >>>>>> and as there is only three of us this would leave the >>>>>> job to two. The SSC is more representative of the >>>>>> GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as >>>>>> a result of the processes they've undertaken to date. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Donna >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *100* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 2 16:22:23 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:22:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: <637093f6-e794-4566-a0fc-850cb0ea07bd@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I was thinking that would be the best way to get him involved.? When pushing for GAC to bring a DPA, please remember the structural separation between the Commission and the DPAs....they could of course request a rep from the EPDP secretariat, which is staffed from EU Commission resources but is independent.? However, we are more likely to get Cathrin Bauer Bulst, who is supposed to represent both the law enforcement side and the DP side...but rarely represents the latter.? Peter K on the other hand is fully independent. cheers Steph On 2018-07-02 06:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > for Peter Kimpian, I understand that he won't be suggested as coming > from GAC but as an independent expert/advisor on data protection? I > think there is language about an expert who can be invited by WG, also > to make difference about independent resources we are requesting too > at resources section. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le?dim. 1 juil. 2018 ??21:37, Stephanie Perrin > > a ?crit?: > > When I made my intervention (sent a well marked up copy to the > entire council list) my focus and concern was on not letting the > business community get out of balance with the GNSO voting status > quo.? As we know, there is a GNSO review coming up and they have > been attempting to minimize us for years, we should IMHO be > watchful for every move.? expanding to 9 or some other ratio seems > risky to me....the contracted parties are at 3 and 3, I think we > should try to keep the GNSO voting balance, recognizing that we > have the advisory councils in there which does put us further into > a minority position. > > My colleague Tara Whalen, former tech expert from the Office of > the PRivacy COmmissioner of Canada and now at Google, has > expressed interest in joining from SSAC.? This would be a very > good choice...and help push back the commercial anti-cybercrime > guys at SSAC from overwhelming us.? Just letting you know who I > have been talking to.? I would agree with FIk that getting more > people is not as important as getting the right people. > > cheers Steph > > PS for those who were not paying attention to the high interest > panel, I note that Fab Vayra pointed out his firm Perkins Cole is > representing the top 50 countries in the world on privacy....now > as I have tried to point out, we should be careful what we ask for > in training.? I dont want the privacy counsel at Perkins Cole > coming in to brief the EPDP.... > > And to repeat, the COE is willing to assign Peter Kimpian to this > group.? That would be great. > > On 2018-07-01 01:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and >> balance as argument. No idea what is the right number as it is >> not vote-based, however we can suggest follow to follow council >> composition. The only drawback is that makes the team quite big >> in term of size. The other option is 3 per SG. We can strategize >> how to use that for negotiation. I guess proposing first option >> (council model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at the end. >> >> With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, >> ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was >> pushing and being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I >> understand there is desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but >> wondering how much it is feasible. >> >> I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not >> enough active, something to have in mind when we will do selection. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii >> > wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our >> council members have to make the issue with the latest EPDP >> membership structure quite clear. >> >> Keith Drazek says in the email that: >> >> /Attached is my updated version of the membership structure >> (following this mornings discussion)/ >> >> I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided >> to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs >> have only 3 members. >> >> Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you >> want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the >> PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. >> Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the >> number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as >> opposed to NCSG. >> >> If our council members want the allocation be 6 members >> (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to >> be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by >> STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is >> clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG >> epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. >> >> I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there >> needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the >> mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to >> participate at SG level. >> >> I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP >> members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least >> we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members >> >> (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the >> issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are >> traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Keith, >> >> Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? >> >> If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? >> >> Thanks, >> Arsene >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> >/On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > ferdeline.com >> > wrote: />//>/Thank you for preparing this, Keith. />//>/I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 >> members each. I prefer the original language that they only >> be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). />//>/I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer >> the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder >> Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself >> internally to appoint its own membership composition is its >> own prerogative. />//>/Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing >> consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to >> "Stakeholder Group." />//>/In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The >> CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any >> assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the >> NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment >> of consensus." />//>/Thank you again for working on this, Keith. />//>/Best wishes, />//>/Ayden F?rdeline />//>//>/??????? Original Message ??????? />>/On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > at icann.org > >> wrote: />>//>>/Hi all, />>//>>//>>//>>//>>/Attached is my updated version of the membership structure >> (following this mornings discussion), and also some very >> preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. />>//>>//>>//>>//>>/Please send comments!! />>//>>//>>//>>/Thanks, />>//>>/Keith/ >> >> >> Farzaneh >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 19:59:07 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:59:07 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Request for Appointment of Members and Liaisons to the IANA Naming Function Review ("IFR") Message-ID: We need to open a call for an NCSG member to be appointed to the review team of IANA Naming Function. Sounds very specialized so need to come up with a couple of qualifications candidate might have to meet. Best Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Request for Appointment - IFR.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 336673 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jul 2 22:47:55 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:47:55 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Request for Appointment of Members and Liaisons to the IANA Naming Function Review ("IFR") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzi, Do we need to come up with qualifications? I looked over the application form (pages 9 and 10 of the PDF) that candidates have to complete, and that might be a good enough filter... the questions under 'skill set and experience' might be good enough? ?Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 2 July 2018 6:59 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > We need to open a call for an NCSG member to be appointed to the review team of IANA Naming Function. Sounds very specialized so need to come up with a couple of qualifications candidate might have to meet. > > Best > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jul 2 22:55:26 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:55:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality In-Reply-To: <62c444f7-a505-78ea-3934-56514eeecaab@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <30F9624A-DFB5-44DB-86F2-F1E68D844433@gmail.com> <6qlifmdMww3EQr69QaHSahwRDdXKzD2gwEVavkJN-I0ObKayzGX7hVUzrx7Np7RLw2795BY6FmyENsevq2L47RLaTtdbqikZ1pq1f9XLJZU=@ferdeline.com> <62c444f7-a505-78ea-3934-56514eeecaab@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <2AJLWddEAv1OU6jX3RGjHYYamtNAyyIF_BpRk-RmjD1z8oRPglx5orIQWqQcf5uIsTs3vTm7ZOKOhsFKHKu5FsdJMJKgcJaMiYUmC7o7X4k=@ferdeline.com> This is a good argument. Will you take it to the drafting team list, Stephanie? Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 2 July 2018 2:33 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I think we can justify it (and I believe it is necessary) because this is the first time the interim spec power was used, and it is addressing the single biggest policy issue we have repeated to resolve. Tight council control, and greater transparency, is therefore necessary. > > cheers Stephanie Perrin > > On 2018-07-01 20:32, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Ayden, >> >> it is difficult. The council rarely appointed for the case of GNSO PDP WG, while it did for CCWG and CWG cases. The SSC charter doesn't include a language about WGs but review teams, empowered community structures and so on as that was an addition brought by IANA stewardship transition, adding a chair selection task would be a precedent and may encourage doing that in future for any WG. >> as it is an exception, we should try to keep it limited. we can also argue about timing. SSC would need more time to proceed and get prepared following its charter. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 1 juil. 2018 ? 23:49, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >> >>> My gut reaction is that I agree on leaving this with Council leadership, but it's a hard argument to make. The SSC's charter does sound like it is whom we should be deferring to. How would you counter such an argument, Rafik? >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 1 July 2018 7:47 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am concerned with moving selection to SSC. While it worked fine for other appointments, I dont think it can do deliberation in such short time. I would be in both options (and I will do my best): leadership or SSC but former seems more quicker. >>>> Names of candidates and statements are also made public , in particular for review teams appointments. >>>> >>>> Best. >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 1:07 PM Robin Gross wrote: >>>> >>>>> Secrecy of the candidate statements is a non-starter. This is a global public policy issue of great public interest and it deserves appropriate public scrutiny. Too often people forget that we are engaging in global governance at ICANN, and ICANN?s commitment to transparency in its bylaws cannot be ignored or lowered out of concerns about being in the public eye. Accountability demands transparency in the formulation of this critical global policy. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Robin >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:50 PM, dorothy g wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It should be made clear to candidates upfront that these statements will be in public domain. These are positions affect the community and the community has the right to know. >>>>>> best >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> There should be transparency here. I actually think candidate statements (and especially conflict of interest statements) should be made public. The claim of being "sensitive to privacy" is one I am finding difficult to understand. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 20:19, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any strong opinions here? This proposal changes the general understanding of, yesterday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality >>>>>>>>> Date: 29 June 2018 at 08:22:22 EST >>>>>>>>> To: epdp-dt at icann.org, Marika Konings >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I support Donna's position, particularly as the expectation on neutrality (perceived or real) may depend on the eye of the beholder. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As Michelle expressed during one of the meetings, who has no vested interest in the results of this PDP? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> safe travels to all >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>>>>>>>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >>>>>>>>> +506 8837 7176 >>>>>>>>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>>>>>>>> COSTA RICA >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> El 2018-06-29 07:34, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt escribi?: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they've undertaken to date. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Donna >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 100 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 01:33:10 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 07:33:10 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Request for Appointment of Members and Liaisons to the IANA Naming Function Review ("IFR") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, thanks for sharing. this is another task in our backlog for appointments (PIR, EPDP, IFR). it can be useful to get a generic appointment process too after finishing them. does this need someone with experience in CWG discussion or not? we got a sample form in the document and we can use that, adding our own criteria. Best, Rafik Le mar. 3 juil. 2018 ? 01:59, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > We need to open a call for an NCSG member to be appointed to the review > team of IANA Naming Function. Sounds very specialized so need to come up > with a couple of qualifications candidate might have to meet. > > Best > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Tue Jul 3 07:49:18 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 12:49:18 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: <637093f6-e794-4566-a0fc-850cb0ea07bd@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Either equal representation by SG, or mirroring GNSO Council numbers, is fine (and considering how much this gets into the details of contracts etc, equal representation from CPH is probably better). The ?numbers by constituency? nonsense is always the CSG trying to get more numbers. And always should be resisted. Kathy is totally right. We need to push back hard. And also go looking far and wide for good people to be on this. We were very stretched in RDS, I don?t think we can just look inside our group of core activists for representation on this group. And transcriptions - yes, this is important. Transcripts are the best way to catch up, they are the best way to double check on what was actually agreed to, they are a vital tool for people outside the core process to be able to review and deal with specific issues etc. Important for transparency. And the cost is small compared to many other things we are talking about. I don?t know why anyone is querying this. David > On 1 Jul 2018, at 11:56 pm, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Hi All, > > This "equal representation by Constituency" goes back to the bad old days of early ICANN. There were no SGs (as there not yet competitive registries and registrars) and we were always outnumbered and outvoted 3:1 -- IPC, BC (IPC business reps), and ISPC (IPC tech people) -- and then NCUC. It's utterly unfair and of course designed to let them do unbalanced things. > > In Panama, we of course heard the rallying cry for representation of "WHOIS users" (esp. from the GAC). Hence the call for excessive constituency representation, I assume. But GDPR is about the fundamental rights of data subjects -- and that's who we represent-- registrants. So, of course, we need data subject representatives present and in the room in fair and balanced numbers to represent registrant rights and interests. Fair is fair. > > And transcriptions -- absolutely critical to a) following the discussion of the EPDP by the world, and b) for those laboring in the trenches of EPDP to rapidly catch up when they miss a meeting (as it will be absolutely impossible to attend them all. It is far, far faster to review a transcript then to listen to the whole of the MP3 recording. In the few RPM WG calls I have had to miss, it's always the transcript that I scan to catch up with the points made. Real volunteers needs these tools -- and so does the Community watching this ultra-rapid process. > And chair statements -- of course public! That way the entire world can lobby them in public (because so much of the world is already lobbying these potential chair candidates in private). > Tx you for your labors in this area -- and fingers crossed for the critical corrections you are fighting to make! > > Best, Kathy > > p.s. CC'ing Milton as he will remember the "three constituencies that were one" -- my name for the IPC/BC/ISPC of the early days. > > On 7/1/2018 8:37 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> When I made my intervention (sent a well marked up copy to the entire council list) my focus and concern was on not letting the business community get out of balance with the GNSO voting status quo. As we know, there is a GNSO review coming up and they have been attempting to minimize us for years, we should IMHO be watchful for every move. expanding to 9 or some other ratio seems risky to me....the contracted parties are at 3 and 3, I think we should try to keep the GNSO voting balance, recognizing that we have the advisory councils in there which does put us further into a minority position. >> >> My colleague Tara Whalen, former tech expert from the Office of the PRivacy COmmissioner of Canada and now at Google, has expressed interest in joining from SSAC. This would be a very good choice...and help push back the commercial anti-cybercrime guys at SSAC from overwhelming us. Just letting you know who I have been talking to. I would agree with FIk that getting more people is not as important as getting the right people. >> >> cheers Steph >> >> PS for those who were not paying attention to the high interest panel, I note that Fab Vayra pointed out his firm Perkins Cole is representing the top 50 countries in the world on privacy....now as I have tried to point out, we should be careful what we ask for in training. I dont want the privacy counsel at Perkins Cole coming in to brief the EPDP.... >> >> And to repeat, the COE is willing to assign Peter Kimpian to this group. That would be great. >> >> On 2018-07-01 01:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and balance as argument. No idea what is the right number as it is not vote-based, however we can suggest follow to follow council composition. The only drawback is that makes the team quite big in term of size. The other option is 3 per SG. We can strategize how to use that for negotiation. I guess proposing first option (council model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at the end. >>> >>> With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was pushing and being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I understand there is desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but wondering how much it is feasible. >>> >>> I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough active, something to have in mind when we will do selection. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii > wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite clear. >>> >>> Keith Drazek says in the email that: >>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion) >>> I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. >>> Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. >>> If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. >>> I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. >>> >>> I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members >>> >>> (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Keith, >>> >>> Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? >>> >>> If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Arsene >>> ----------------- >>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>> >>> > On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >>> > >>> > Thank you for preparing this, Keith. >>> > >>> > I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). >>> > >>> > I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. >>> > >>> > Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." >>> > >>> > In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." >>> > >>> > Thank you again for working on this, Keith. >>> > >>> > Best wishes, >>> > >>> > Ayden F?rdeline >>> > >>> > >>> > ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> >> On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi all, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Please send comments!! >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> >>> >> Keith >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 3 14:54:50 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 07:54:50 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP In-Reply-To: References: <637093f6-e794-4566-a0fc-850cb0ea07bd@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: The same people questioning why we want transcripts are the same people who see nothing wrong with an unbalanced working group, where we have one-third the number of seats as the CSG. I think they are being quite transparent -- the thought of transcribing a meeting is unbearably expensive for them, but flying an extra 12 people (6 from the CSG and an extra 6 from the SO/ACs) for the three face-to-face meetings, the first of which will be a fortnight long, is at least in public of no concern to them. ?Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 3 July 2018 6:49 AM, David Cake wrote: > Either equal representation by SG, or mirroring GNSO Council numbers, is fine (and considering how much this gets into the details of contracts etc, equal representation from CPH is probably better). > The ?numbers by constituency? nonsense is always the CSG trying to get more numbers. And always should be resisted. > > Kathy is totally right. We need to push back hard. > > And also go looking far and wide for good people to be on this. We were very stretched in RDS, I don?t think we can just look inside our group of core activists for representation on this group. > > And transcriptions - yes, this is important. Transcripts are the best way to catch up, they are the best way to double check on what was actually agreed to, they are a vital tool for people outside the core process to be able to review and deal with specific issues etc. Important for transparency. And the cost is small compared to many other things we are talking about. I don?t know why anyone is querying this. > > David > >> On 1 Jul 2018, at 11:56 pm, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> This "equal representation by Constituency" goes back to the bad old days of early ICANN. There were no SGs (as there not yet competitive registries and registrars) and we were always outnumbered and outvoted 3:1 -- IPC, BC (IPC business reps), and ISPC (IPC tech people) -- and then NCUC. It's utterly unfair and of course designed to let them do unbalanced things. >> >> In Panama, we of course heard the rallying cry for representation of "WHOIS users" (esp. from the GAC). Hence the call for excessive constituency representation, I assume. But GDPR is about the fundamental rights of data subjects -- and that's who we represent-- registrants. So, of course, we need data subject representatives present and in the room in fair and balanced numbers to represent registrant rights and interests. Fair is fair. >> >> And transcriptions -- absolutely critical to a) following the discussion of the EPDP by the world, and b) for those laboring in the trenches of EPDP to rapidly catch up when they miss a meeting (as it will be absolutely impossible to attend them all. It is far, far faster to review a transcript then to listen to the whole of the MP3 recording. In the few RPM WG calls I have had to miss, it's always the transcript that I scan to catch up with the points made. Real volunteers needs these tools -- and so does the Community watching this ultra-rapid process. >> >> And chair statements -- of course public! That way the entire world can lobby them in public (because so much of the world is already lobbying these potential chair candidates in private). >> >> Tx you for your labors in this area -- and fingers crossed for the critical corrections you are fighting to make! >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> p.s. CC'ing Milton as he will remember the "three constituencies that were one" -- my name for the IPC/BC/ISPC of the early days. >> >> On 7/1/2018 8:37 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> When I made my intervention (sent a well marked up copy to the entire council list) my focus and concern was on not letting the business community get out of balance with the GNSO voting status quo. As we know, there is a GNSO review coming up and they have been attempting to minimize us for years, we should IMHO be watchful for every move. expanding to 9 or some other ratio seems risky to me....the contracted parties are at 3 and 3, I think we should try to keep the GNSO voting balance, recognizing that we have the advisory councils in there which does put us further into a minority position. >>> >>> My colleague Tara Whalen, former tech expert from the Office of the PRivacy COmmissioner of Canada and now at Google, has expressed interest in joining from SSAC. This would be a very good choice...and help push back the commercial anti-cybercrime guys at SSAC from overwhelming us. Just letting you know who I have been talking to. I would agree with FIk that getting more people is not as important as getting the right people. >>> >>> cheers Steph >>> >>> PS for those who were not paying attention to the high interest panel, I note that Fab Vayra pointed out his firm Perkins Cole is representing the top 50 countries in the world on privacy....now as I have tried to point out, we should be careful what we ask for in training. I dont want the privacy counsel at Perkins Cole coming in to brief the EPDP.... >>> >>> And to repeat, the COE is willing to assign Peter Kimpian to this group. That would be great. >>> >>> On 2018-07-01 01:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can argue equality and balance as argument. No idea what is the right number as it is not vote-based, however we can suggest follow to follow council composition. The only drawback is that makes the team quite big in term of size. The other option is 3 per SG. We can strategize how to use that for negotiation. I guess proposing first option (council model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at the end. >>>> >>>> With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, ccNSO(there is no indication they want to participate), GAC was pushing and being vocal for 5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I understand there is desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but wondering how much it is feasible. >>>> >>>> I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough active, something to have in mind when we will do selection. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> I checked the mailing list of the EPDP, and I think our council members have to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership structure quite clear. >>>>> >>>>> Keith Drazek says in the email that: >>>>> >>>>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion) >>>>> >>>>> I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members. >>>>> >>>>> Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG. >>>>> >>>>> If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. >>>>> >>>>> I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. >>>>> >>>>> I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members >>>>> >>>>> (I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. >>>>> >>>>> Dear Keith, >>>>> >>>>> Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document? >>>>> >>>>> If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Arsene >>>>> ----------------- >>>>> Ars?ne Tungali, >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden F?rdeline < >>>>> [icann at ferdeline.com](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt) >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for preparing this, Keith. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate). >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group." >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus." >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you again for working on this, Keith. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt < >>>>> [epdp-dt at icann.org](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt) >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please send comments!! >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Keith >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient >> Virus-free. [www.avast.com](https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Jul 3 17:23:40 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 10:23:40 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafik, would it be possible to add a link to the full paper? I see that the CSG has commented broadly, and I'm happy to do the same (and hope others will as well!). Tx, Kathu On 7/2/2018 6:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > this is the input from BC on PDP 3.0 report. there is an extension for > SG/C to send their comments on the report. > we have a google doc to populate with an NCSG input > https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Marie Pattullo* > > Date: lun. 2 juil. 2018 ??19:13 > Subject: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper > To: GNSO Council List > > > > Dear all, > > Trust you had a good journey home! > > As requested during our meetings last week, please see below the input > that the BC provided on PDP 3.0. We?re of course more than happy to > discuss further. > > Kind regards, > > Marie > > *From:*Marie Pattullo > *Sent:* Friday, June 8, 2018 4:42 PM > *To:* 'Marika Konings' >; Heather Forrest > >; Austin, > Donna >; > 'Rafik Dammak' > > *Cc:* bc-excomm at icann.org > *Subject:* RE: GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper > > All, > > Many thanks for this. As requested, input from the BC is below. > > Kind regards > > Marie > > The BC welcomes the discussion of how to improve the GNSO Policy > Development Process (PDP). Ensuring an efficient and effective way to > gather, synthesise and advance community-based policies is a vital > part of ICANN?s DNA. > > As a starting point, not only has the current average timeline for > PDPs increased, so has the amount of working groups, reviews and > policy dossiers ? not least the unprecedented EPDP/Temporary > Specification work. A balance must be found between allowing enough > time and community input on the one hand and an efficient and timely > process on the other; we thank the Council leadership and staff for > setting out the challenges in a concise and realistic way. Taking the > potential incremental improvements in order: > > */Working Group Dynamics /* > > * /Terms of participation for WG members/: while a ?Commitment of > Participation? template may be worthwhile, in practice this is > unlikely to have a practical effect on participation. We already > have standards of behaviour but experience shows that this does > not stop bad faith or even the wilfully unpleasant, and at a > lesser level one person?s joke is another?s affront. This would > have to be policed carefully. > * /Consider alternatives to open WG model/: designation by > SO/AC/SG/Cs should help to ensure more objectivity and expertise, > but we would add that the designee should also act as the conduit > for their designator?s views and not in their personal capacity. > Individuals must be allowed to join as either participants or > observers to preserve the multistakeholder model; would it however > be possible to consider ?weighted voting? in contentious matters > (so more ?weight? for designees)? For example, could the Chair > call a vote on a discussion point when it seems that deadlock has > been reached based on ideology rather than reason and community > benefit? > * /Limitations to joining of new members after a certain time/: if > this is to happen, new observers must still be allowed to join and > newsletters issued regularly to ensure transparency. The decision > to widen/restrict the membership should not fall on the PDP > leadership alone, but on Council as a whole to prevent unwarranted > pressure/capture of the Chairs. > > */WG Leadership/* > > * /Capture vs. Consensus Playbook/: any practical tools and support > to ensure effective and efficient leadership should be seen as a > positive. Experienced Chairs/leadership would be the most obvious > drafters to share hands-on experience and solutions. > * /Active role for and clear description of Council liaison to PDP > WGs/: support. > * /Document expectations for WG leaders that outlines role & > responsibilities as well as minimum skills / expertise required/: > support. > > // > > */Complexity of Subject Matter /* > > * /Creation of Cooperative Teams/: while we understand the good > faith reasoning, this goes against the idea of the ?Commitment of > Participation? and could develop into a shortcut for those who do > not/cannot engage who then rely on these Teams to do extra > work/outreach to compensate for their lack of engagement. It would > also lead to further complexity by adding another structural > element that could cause confusion about who really is the shaping > the PDP ? the drafting team, the subgroup, the Chair, Cooperative > Team..? It could also be vulnerable to claims that the Teams were > misdirecting the members/ misrepresenting the discussions. > > ?/PDP Plenary or Model PDP/: full support. > > */Consensus Building/* > > * /Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 (Standard Methodology > for decision making)/: general support but a note of caution: > ??Consensus? means different things to different organisations and > at the beginning of a PDP it would be helpful to remind everyone > about what ?consensus? will mean in the PDP process. However there > is value in considering consensus-building lessons and approaches > used by other organisations. > * /Document positions at the outset/: possible, but would this not > extend the opening phases of the PDP before substantive work could > start? And whose positions ? those of members, or aggregate views? > There will also by default be sub-positions of positions. We are > not convinced that this would be of benefit. > > */Role of Council as Manager of the PDP/* > > * /Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces/: full support. > * /Notification to Council of changes in work plan/: full support. > * /Review of Chair(s/): this leads to a further question ? do we > need a policy on the appointment of Chairs in the first place? > While we support the idea of a ?process... that allows a WG to > challenge and/or replace its leadership team? this should be > carefully crafted. The 12-month reappointment seems sensible. > * /Make better use of existing flexibility in PDP to allow for data > gathering, chartering and termination when it is clear that no > consensus can be achieved/: support. > * /Independent conflict resolution/: We are concerned that an > independent conflict resolution process has the potential of > becoming the default way to resolve seemingly intractable WG > disagreements rather than forcing WG members to do the hard work > of consensus-building and employing the toolkit of possible > responses mentioned under WG Leadership. After two years under the > revised PDP process, we might then reconsider the > desirability/need for recourse to independent conflict resolution. > Further - who would do this? If external ? cost implications? > Could it fall under the remit of (e.g.) the Standing Selection > Committee? Whoever it is, this should be known to all WGs from the > outset. > * /Criteria for PDP WG Updates/: support. > * /Resource reporting for PDP WGs/: support. > > *From:*council > *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings > *Sent:* Friday, May 11, 2018 11:24 PM > *To:* council at gnso.icann.org > *Subject:* [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper > > /Sending on behalf of the Council leadership/ > > Dear colleagues, > > Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion > paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in > bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for > your and your respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, > particularly on section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for > consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements > should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional > implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving > feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation > plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental > improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next > step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback > and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can > consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. > > Best regards, > > GNSO Council leadership team > > */Marika Konings/* > > /Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) / > > /Email: marika.konings at icann.org / > > // > > /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/ > > /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > ?and visiting the GNSO Newcomer > pages > . > / > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 04:18:18 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 10:18:18 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Kathy, here we go, report attached Rafik Le mar. 3 juil. 2018 ? 23:24, Kathy Kleiman a ?crit : > Hi Rafik, would it be possible to add a link to the full paper? I see > that the CSG has commented broadly, and I'm happy to do the same (and hope > others will as well!). > > Tx, Kathu > > On 7/2/2018 6:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > this is the input from BC on PDP 3.0 report. there is an extension for > SG/C to send their comments on the report. > we have a google doc to populate with an NCSG input > https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit > . > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Marie Pattullo > Date: lun. 2 juil. 2018 ? 19:13 > Subject: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper > To: GNSO Council List > > > > > Dear all, > > Trust you had a good journey home! > > As requested during our meetings last week, please see below the input > that the BC provided on PDP 3.0. We?re of course more than happy to discuss > further. > > Kind regards, > > Marie > > > > > > *From:* Marie Pattullo > *Sent:* Friday, June 8, 2018 4:42 PM > *To:* 'Marika Konings' ; Heather Forrest < > haforrestesq at gmail.com>; Austin, Donna ; > 'Rafik Dammak' > *Cc:* bc-excomm at icann.org > *Subject:* RE: GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper > > > > All, > > Many thanks for this. As requested, input from the BC is below. > > Kind regards > > Marie > > > > > > The BC welcomes the discussion of how to improve the GNSO Policy > Development Process (PDP). Ensuring an efficient and effective way to > gather, synthesise and advance community-based policies is a vital part of > ICANN?s DNA. > > > > As a starting point, not only has the current average timeline for PDPs > increased, so has the amount of working groups, reviews and policy dossiers > ? not least the unprecedented EPDP/Temporary Specification work. A balance > must be found between allowing enough time and community input on the one > hand and an efficient and timely process on the other; we thank the Council > leadership and staff for setting out the challenges in a concise and > realistic way. Taking the potential incremental improvements in order: > > > > *Working Group Dynamics * > > - *Terms of participation for WG members*: while a ?Commitment of > Participation? template may be worthwhile, in practice this is unlikely to > have a practical effect on participation. We already have standards of > behaviour but experience shows that this does not stop bad faith or even > the wilfully unpleasant, and at a lesser level one person?s joke is > another?s affront. This would have to be policed carefully. > - *Consider alternatives to open WG model*: designation by SO/AC/SG/Cs > should help to ensure more objectivity and expertise, but we would add that > the designee should also act as the conduit for their designator?s views > and not in their personal capacity. Individuals must be allowed to join as > either participants or observers to preserve the multistakeholder model; > would it however be possible to consider ?weighted voting? in contentious > matters (so more ?weight? for designees)? For example, could the Chair call > a vote on a discussion point when it seems that deadlock has been reached > based on ideology rather than reason and community benefit? > - *Limitations to joining of new members after a certain time*: if > this is to happen, new observers must still be allowed to join and > newsletters issued regularly to ensure transparency. The decision to > widen/restrict the membership should not fall on the PDP leadership alone, > but on Council as a whole to prevent unwarranted pressure/capture of the > Chairs. > > > > *WG Leadership* > > - *Capture vs. Consensus Playbook*: any practical tools and support to > ensure effective and efficient leadership should be seen as a positive. > Experienced Chairs/leadership would be the most obvious drafters to share > hands-on experience and solutions. > - *Active role for and clear description of Council liaison to PDP WGs*: > support. > - *Document expectations for WG leaders that outlines role & > responsibilities as well as minimum skills / expertise required*: > support. > > > > *Complexity of Subject Matter * > > - *Creation of Cooperative Teams*: while we understand the good faith > reasoning, this goes against the idea of the ?Commitment of Participation? > and could develop into a shortcut for those who do not/cannot engage who > then rely on these Teams to do extra work/outreach to compensate for their > lack of engagement. It would also lead to further complexity by adding > another structural element that could cause confusion about who really is > the shaping the PDP ? the drafting team, the subgroup, the Chair, > Cooperative Team..? It could also be vulnerable to claims that the Teams > were misdirecting the members/ misrepresenting the discussions. > > ? *PDP Plenary or Model PDP*: full support. > > > > *Consensus Building* > > - *Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 (Standard Methodology for > decision making)*: general support but a note of caution: ?Consensus? > means different things to different organisations and at the beginning of a > PDP it would be helpful to remind everyone about what ?consensus? will mean > in the PDP process. However there is value in considering > consensus-building lessons and approaches used by other organisations. > - *Document positions at the outset*: possible, but would this not > extend the opening phases of the PDP before substantive work could start? > And whose positions ? those of members, or aggregate views? There will also > by default be sub-positions of positions. We are not convinced that this > would be of benefit. > > > > *Role of Council as Manager of the PDP* > > - *Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces*: full support. > - *Notification to Council of changes in work plan*: full support. > - *Review of Chair(s*): this leads to a further question ? do we need > a policy on the appointment of Chairs in the first place? While we support > the idea of a ?process... that allows a WG to challenge and/or replace its > leadership team? this should be carefully crafted. The 12-month > reappointment seems sensible. > - *Make better use of existing flexibility in PDP to allow for data > gathering, chartering and termination when it is clear that no consensus > can be achieved*: support. > - *Independent conflict resolution*: We are concerned that an > independent conflict resolution process has the potential of becoming the > default way to resolve seemingly intractable WG disagreements rather than > forcing WG members to do the hard work of consensus-building and employing > the toolkit of possible responses mentioned under WG Leadership. After two > years under the revised PDP process, we might then reconsider the > desirability/need for recourse to independent conflict resolution. Further > - who would do this? If external ? cost implications? Could it fall under > the remit of (e.g.) the Standing Selection Committee? Whoever it is, this > should be known to all WGs from the outset. > - *Criteria for PDP WG Updates*: support. > - *Resource reporting for PDP WGs*: support. > > > > > > > > *From:* council *On Behalf Of *Marika > Konings > *Sent:* Friday, May 11, 2018 11:24 PM > *To:* council at gnso.icann.org > *Subject:* [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper > > > > *Sending on behalf of the Council leadership* > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. > The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all > discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your > respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on > section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In > particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, > are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that > should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the > development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of > implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To > contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request > your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council > can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. > > > > Best regards, > > > > GNSO Council leadership team > > > > *Marika Konings* > > *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation > for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * > > *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * > > > > *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* > > *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > . * > > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > > <#m_-2124589915980557372_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO PDP 3.0 - 8 May 2018.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 692229 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 20:52:42 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 02:52:42 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter In-Reply-To: <8668567bd32d436cbc084ea3bd3569e3@verisign.com> References: <8668567bd32d436cbc084ea3bd3569e3@verisign.com> Message-ID: Hi all, Those changes on scope were proposed by keith, it is all about the access and phasing. Please review carefully and discuss here. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Drazek, Keith Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 12:00 AM Subject: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter To: marika.konings at icann.org , susankpolicy at gmail.com , Heather Forrest ( Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au) , Donna.Austin at team.neustar , rafik.dammak at gmail.com Hi all, Please find attached some suggested edits to the scope section of the Charter, primarily intended to clarify the two-phase approach (Temp Spec and then Access Model) and to help identify what issues from Phase 1 are gating for Phase 2. Susan, I understand you and Samantha chatted about this in Panama, so we wanted to follow up with proposed text. Let me know if you have any questions, or if this should be added directly to the Google doc. Note that the recommendations will impact the timeline graphic as noted in the comment on Page 6. Best, Keith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EPDP Draft Charter - Suggested Edits - 07-03-18.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 208441 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jul 4 21:13:12 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 14:13:12 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter In-Reply-To: References: <8668567bd32d436cbc084ea3bd3569e3@verisign.com> Message-ID: Samantha from ICANN Legal? How interesting this issue is already being discussed with her. Not sure that is even appropriate ? we do not want an ICANN Legal staff liaison who is not neutral. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 19:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > Those changes on scope were proposed by keith, it is all about the access and phasing. Please review carefully and discuss here. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Drazek, Keith > Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 12:00 AM > Subject: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter > To: marika.konings at icann.org , susankpolicy at gmail.com , Heather Forrest (Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au) , Donna.Austin at team.neustar , rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > Hi all, > > Please find attached some suggested edits to the scope section of the Charter, primarily intended to clarify the two-phase approach (Temp Spec and then Access Model) and to help identify what issues from Phase 1 are gating for Phase 2. > > Susan, I understand you and Samantha chatted about this in Panama, so we wanted to follow up with proposed text. > > Let me know if you have any questions, or if this should be added directly to the Google doc. Note that the recommendations will impact the timeline graphic as noted in the comment on Page 6. > > Best, > > Keith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 21:15:00 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 03:15:00 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter In-Reply-To: References: <8668567bd32d436cbc084ea3bd3569e3@verisign.com> Message-ID: It is another Samantha, the Registries SG Policy vice chair. Rafik On Thu, Jul 5, 2018, 3:13 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Samantha from ICANN Legal? How interesting this issue is already being > discussed with her. Not sure that is even appropriate ? we do not want > an ICANN Legal staff liaison who is not neutral. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 19:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > Those changes on scope were proposed by keith, it is all about the access > and phasing. Please review carefully and discuss here. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Drazek, Keith > Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 12:00 AM > Subject: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter > To: marika.konings at icann.org , > susankpolicy at gmail.com , Heather Forrest ( > Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au) , > Donna.Austin at team.neustar , > rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > Hi all, > > > > Please find attached some suggested edits to the scope section of the > Charter, primarily intended to clarify the two-phase approach (Temp Spec > and then Access Model) and to help identify what issues from Phase 1 are > gating for Phase 2. > > > > Susan, I understand you and Samantha chatted about this in Panama, so we > wanted to follow up with proposed text. > > > > Let me know if you have any questions, or if this should be added directly > to the Google doc. Note that the recommendations will impact the timeline > graphic as noted in the comment on Page 6. > > > > Best, > > Keith > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 21:15:23 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 14:15:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter In-Reply-To: References: <8668567bd32d436cbc084ea3bd3569e3@verisign.com> Message-ID: Is this doc in track changes. Or is there a way at least he spells out the changes clearly in the document or his email? If not this is not acceptable. We need to clearly know what changes are made to the doc. On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:13 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Samantha from ICANN Legal? How interesting this issue is already being > discussed with her. Not sure that is even appropriate ? we do not want > an ICANN Legal staff liaison who is not neutral. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 19:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > Those changes on scope were proposed by keith, it is all about the access > and phasing. Please review carefully and discuss here. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Drazek, Keith > Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 12:00 AM > Subject: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter > To: marika.konings at icann.org , > susankpolicy at gmail.com , Heather Forrest ( > Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au) , > Donna.Austin at team.neustar , > rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > Hi all, > > > > Please find attached some suggested edits to the scope section of the > Charter, primarily intended to clarify the two-phase approach (Temp Spec > and then Access Model) and to help identify what issues from Phase 1 are > gating for Phase 2. > > > > Susan, I understand you and Samantha chatted about this in Panama, so we > wanted to follow up with proposed text. > > > > Let me know if you have any questions, or if this should be added directly > to the Google doc. Note that the recommendations will impact the timeline > graphic as noted in the comment on Page 6. > > > > Best, > > Keith > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jul 4 21:16:25 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 14:16:25 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter In-Reply-To: References: <8668567bd32d436cbc084ea3bd3569e3@verisign.com> Message-ID: Ok, I am glad to hear that. Thanks for clarifying! Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 20:15, Rafik Dammak wrote: > It is another Samantha, the Registries SG Policy vice chair. > > Rafik > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018, 3:13 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Samantha from ICANN Legal? How interesting this issue is already being discussed with her. Not sure that is even appropriate ? we do not want an ICANN Legal staff liaison who is not neutral. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 19:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Those changes on scope were proposed by keith, it is all about the access and phasing. Please review carefully and discuss here. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Drazek, Keith >>> Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 12:00 AM >>> Subject: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter >>> To: marika.konings at icann.org , susankpolicy at gmail.com, Heather Forrest (Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au) , Donna.Austin at team.neustar , rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Please find attached some suggested edits to the scope section of the Charter, primarily intended to clarify the two-phase approach (Temp Spec and then Access Model) and to help identify what issues from Phase 1 are gating for Phase 2. >>> >>> Susan, I understand you and Samantha chatted about this in Panama, so we wanted to follow up with proposed text. >>> >>> Let me know if you have any questions, or if this should be added directly to the Google doc. Note that the recommendations will impact the timeline graphic as noted in the comment on Page 6. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Keith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Jul 4 22:24:33 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 15:24:33 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter In-Reply-To: References: <8668567bd32d436cbc084ea3bd3569e3@verisign.com> Message-ID: /Suggested edits [in red] to Keith's additions to _Part 2.j_:/ //j)Access to non-public registration data j1) Should the requirements detailed in Appendix A, Section 4 of the Temporary Specification remain in place until a system for accredited access is developed? i2) What is a reasonable amount of time by which a registrar/registry must respond to a third party?s request for access to non-public data? Does it matter who the third party is, e.g., law enforcement, cybersecurity or intellectual property attorney? j3) Is there a standard set of information that third-party requestors should provide to a registrar/registry when submitting a request to access non-public registration data? Does it matter who the third party is and for what purpose he/she/it seeks the data? /*Also, shocked to see the newly-added Phase II section below. My understanding from our NCSG Policy meeting in Panama is that both CPH and NCSG to not want this EPDP to work through the details of Accredited Access. Thus, I point out that it is now drafted for inclusion as a "Phase II." In what time? */ /*I **don't see **how this section can possibly be done in 3-4 months (for which the original drafting most be done)**-- far too much public in**put needed, **far beyond the **expertise of ICANN, and far too fast for the communities (e.g. **cybersecurity, law enforcement and intellec**tual property) to respond with informative public comment, **information and guidance. Quick note as a Co-Chair of a huge PDP, having two Phases is very, very bad idea. It's very inefficient and it is very time-consuming. I think NCSG PC was right in our original assessment: have one phase (without access and accreditation), wrap it up and then move on to a new phase in a separate PDP or EPDP.*/ To be deleted, Phase II below?? Phase II: System for Accredited Access to Non-Public Registration Data a) Parties that may access the data a1) What are legitimate purposes for third parties to access registration data? a2) What legal bases exist to support this access? a3) Which parties/groups meet these purposes? a4) Do those parties/groups consist of different types of users? a5) What data elements should each user/party have access to based on their purposes? b) Vetting processes b1) Should different types of parties be vetted by different bodies? b2) Which bodies can effectively vet each party/group? b3) What criteria will vetting bodies use to assess each party/group? b4) What requirements will different parties/groups need to meet to be vetted? c) Credentialing c1) How will credentials be granted and managed? c2) Who is responsible for providing credentials? c3) How will these credentials be integrated into registrars?/registries? technical systems? d) Terms of access and compliance d1) What rules/policies will govern users' access to the data? d2) What rules/policies will govern users' use of the data once accessed? d3) Who will be responsible for establishing and enforcing these rules/policies? d4) What, if any, sanctions or penalties will a user face for abusing the data, including future restrictions on access or compensation to data subjects whose data has been abused? d5) What kinds of insights will CPs have into what data is accessed and how it is used? d6) What rights do data subjects have in ascertaining when and how their data is accessed and used? Best, Kathy On 7/4/2018 1:52 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > Those changes on scope were proposed by keith, it is all about the > access and phasing. Please review carefully and discuss here. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Drazek, Keith > > Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 12:00 AM > Subject: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter > To: marika.konings at icann.org > >, > susankpolicy at gmail.com > >, Heather > Forrest (Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au > ) >, Donna.Austin at team.neustar > , rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > > > Hi all, > > Please find attached some suggested edits to the scope section of the > Charter, primarily intended to clarify the two-phase approach (Temp > Spec and then Access Model) and to help identify what issues from > Phase 1 are gating for Phase 2. > > Susan, I understand you and Samantha chatted about this in Panama, so > we wanted to follow up with proposed text. > > Let me know if you have any questions, or if this should be added > directly to the Google doc. Note that the recommendations will impact > the timeline graphic as noted in the comment on Page 6. > > Best, > > Keith > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 07:03:52 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 00:03:52 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter In-Reply-To: References: <8668567bd32d436cbc084ea3bd3569e3@verisign.com> Message-ID: Rafik, all, I can see that Samantha has deleted this very important question from section C: c1) Should registrars continue to transfer contact data for all contacts to (thick) registries? We need to object and ask the question to remain. We need to know if such transfer is 1) necessary 2) GDPR compliant All the access questions should be objected to except what was originally there. No phase two in EPDP should be accepted. On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:53 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > Those changes on scope were proposed by keith, it is all about the access > and phasing. Please review carefully and discuss here. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Drazek, Keith > Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 12:00 AM > Subject: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter > To: marika.konings at icann.org , > susankpolicy at gmail.com , Heather Forrest ( > Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au) , > Donna.Austin at team.neustar , > rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > Hi all, > > > > Please find attached some suggested edits to the scope section of the > Charter, primarily intended to clarify the two-phase approach (Temp Spec > and then Access Model) and to help identify what issues from Phase 1 are > gating for Phase 2. > > > > Susan, I understand you and Samantha chatted about this in Panama, so we > wanted to follow up with proposed text. > > > > Let me know if you have any questions, or if this should be added directly > to the Google doc. Note that the recommendations will impact the timeline > graphic as noted in the comment on Page 6. > > > > Best, > > Keith > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 10:29:22 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 16:29:22 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter In-Reply-To: References: <8668567bd32d436cbc084ea3bd3569e3@verisign.com> Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, my understanding for the comments till now on the scope is: - keep question c1: "Should registrars continue to transfer contact data for all contacts to (thick) registries?" also other original questions - add 2 new questions with regard to data transfer c4) Is the transfer of personal data of domain name registrants from registrars to registries legal and GDPR compliant. c5) is the transfer of data (and having thick whois) in line with ICANN mission. Does it fulfill a legitimate purpose in line with ICANN mission? - remove all the new part for phase 2 on access suggested by Keith Best, Rafik Le jeu. 5 juil. 2018 ? 13:04, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Rafik, all, > > I can see that Samantha has deleted this very important question from > section C: > > > c1) Should registrars continue to transfer contact data for all contacts > to (thick) registries? > > We need to object and ask the question to remain. We need to know if such > transfer is 1) necessary 2) GDPR compliant > > All the access questions should be objected to except what was originally > there. > > No phase two in EPDP should be accepted. > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:53 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Those changes on scope were proposed by keith, it is all about the access >> and phasing. Please review carefully and discuss here. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Drazek, Keith >> Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 12:00 AM >> Subject: Suggested Edits to Scope in the EPDP Charter >> To: marika.konings at icann.org , >> susankpolicy at gmail.com , Heather Forrest ( >> Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au) , >> Donna.Austin at team.neustar , >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Please find attached some suggested edits to the scope section of the >> Charter, primarily intended to clarify the two-phase approach (Temp Spec >> and then Access Model) and to help identify what issues from Phase 1 are >> gating for Phase 2. >> >> >> >> Susan, I understand you and Samantha chatted about this in Panama, so we >> wanted to follow up with proposed text. >> >> >> >> Let me know if you have any questions, or if this should be added >> directly to the Google doc. Note that the recommendations will impact the >> timeline graphic as noted in the comment on Page 6. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Keith >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 15:19:47 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 14:19:47 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP DT Call today: What is our position? Message-ID: Hi all, Since i was not able to join the PC call this week and that we are already at the DT call, may I please have in few bullet points what are our positions with regards to the Charter? This will be super helpful. Thanks, Arsene ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 5 15:29:54 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 08:29:54 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP DT Call today: What is our position? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4wi2gQCIuWJW-0Bg4ToVL9C7yU-ygF8wc9ycqdHoFregn3-vZuXXRGKjbPQZEhY-6-6b9SAIzaY9Szak8Ee-ti7H5drogqSu7ZHm4XoUzIo=@ferdeline.com> Hi Arsene, As I already told you - 20 minutes ago - the call has already began, so we do not have the time to catch you up. It's your responsibility to do your own homework, or to ask before a call begins. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 5 July 2018 2:19 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > Hi all, > > Since i was not able to join the PC call this week and that we are already at the DT call, may I please have in few bullet points what are our positions with regards to the Charter? > > This will be super helpful. > > Thanks, > Arsene > ------------------------ > *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* > Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org), > CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](https://www.smart-kitoko.com/), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com) > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 15:34:56 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 14:34:56 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP DT Call today: What is our position? In-Reply-To: <4wi2gQCIuWJW-0Bg4ToVL9C7yU-ygF8wc9ycqdHoFregn3-vZuXXRGKjbPQZEhY-6-6b9SAIzaY9Szak8Ee-ti7H5drogqSu7ZHm4XoUzIo=@ferdeline.com> References: <4wi2gQCIuWJW-0Bg4ToVL9C7yU-ygF8wc9ycqdHoFregn3-vZuXXRGKjbPQZEhY-6-6b9SAIzaY9Szak8Ee-ti7H5drogqSu7ZHm4XoUzIo=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, This was just another opportunity for you to keep quiet if you cannot help and not speaking on behalf of eveyone by using "we". FY, another member has kindly brieffed me already, after reading this. @All, please disregard this email. Regards, Arsene 2018-07-05 14:29 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline : > Hi Arsene, > > As I already told you - 20 minutes ago - the call has already began, so we > do not have the time to catch you up. It's your responsibility to do your > own homework, or to ask before a call begins. > > Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 5 July 2018 2:19 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Since i was not able to join the PC call this week and that we are already >> at the DT call, may I please have in few bullet points what are our >> positions with regards to the Charter? >> >> This will be super helpful. >> >> Thanks, >> Arsene >> ------------------------ >> *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi >> international](http://www.rudiinternational.org), >> CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](https://www.smart-kitoko.com/), [Mabingwa >> Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com) >> Tel: +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> [2015 Mandela Washington >> Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) >> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF >> [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) >> & >> [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) >> - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - >> [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com) - ICANN's [GNSO >> Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC >> Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) >> - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet >> Freedom. >> >> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report >> ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and >> ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 5 15:37:41 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 08:37:41 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP DT Call today: What is our position? In-Reply-To: References: <4wi2gQCIuWJW-0Bg4ToVL9C7yU-ygF8wc9ycqdHoFregn3-vZuXXRGKjbPQZEhY-6-6b9SAIzaY9Szak8Ee-ti7H5drogqSu7ZHm4XoUzIo=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Arsene, You are not even in the Adobe room - are you on the audio bridge? It is not my responsibility - or the responsibility of others - to brief you on this. You should do your own homework, and not expect others to keep you informed. ?Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 5 July 2018 2:34 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > ?? > > Hi Ayden, > > This was just another opportunity for you to keep quiet if you cannot > > help and not speaking on behalf of eveyone by using "we". > > FY, another member has kindly brieffed me already, after reading this. > > @All, please disregard this email. > > Regards, > > Arsene > > 2018-07-05 14:29 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline icann at ferdeline.com: > > > Hi Arsene, > > > > As I already told you - 20 minutes ago - the call has already began, so we > > > > do not have the time to catch you up. It's your responsibility to do your > > > > own homework, or to ask before a call begins. > > > > Ayden > > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > > > On 5 July 2018 2:19 PM, Ars?ne Tungali arsenebaguma at gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Since i was not able to join the PC call this week and that we are already > > > > > > at the DT call, may I please have in few bullet points what are our > > > > > > positions with regards to the Charter? > > > > > > This will be super helpful. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Arsene > > > > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > Ars?ne Tungali > > > > > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudiinternational, > > > > > > CEO, Smart Services Sarl, MabingwaForum > > > > > > Tel: +243 993810967 > > > > > > GPG: 523644A0 > > > > > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > > > > > 2015 Mandela WashingtonFelllow > > > > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF > > > > > > Brazil > > > > > > & > > > > > > Mexico) > > > > > > - AFRISIG 2016 - > > > > > > Blogger - ICANN's GNSOCouncil Member.AFRINIC > > > > > > Fellow(Mauritius) > > > > > > - IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet > > > > > > Freedom. > > > > > > > > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report > > > > > > (English) and > > > > > > (French) > > -- > > Ars?ne Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international > > http://www.rudiinternational.org, > > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, *Mabingwa Forum > > http://www.mabingwa-forum.com* > > Tel: +243 993810967 > > GPG: 523644A0 > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors > > & Mexico > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors) > > - AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - Blogger > > http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council > > https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( > > Mauritius > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)* > > - *IGFSA Member http://www.igfsa.org/ - Internet Governance - Internet > > Freedom. > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234) and (French > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242) From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Jul 5 15:38:12 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 08:38:12 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP DT Call today: What is our position? In-Reply-To: References: <4wi2gQCIuWJW-0Bg4ToVL9C7yU-ygF8wc9ycqdHoFregn3-vZuXXRGKjbPQZEhY-6-6b9SAIzaY9Szak8Ee-ti7H5drogqSu7ZHm4XoUzIo=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <7c40f25c-3b1e-02ed-a4fa-efb417009efd@mail.utoronto.ca> Let us try to keep our tempers folks.? We just had a last minute ambush from the IPC, not unexpected, but we are at battle stations making sure they don't get away with it.? Many thanks to whoever had time to brief you, I am being called on to respond to this mess.... Stephanie On 2018-07-05 08:34, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > This was just another opportunity for you to keep quiet if you cannot > help and not speaking on behalf of eveyone by using "we". > > FY, another member has kindly brieffed me already, after reading this. > > @All, please disregard this email. > > Regards, > Arsene > > 2018-07-05 14:29 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline : >> Hi Arsene, >> >> As I already told you - 20 minutes ago - the call has already began, so we >> do not have the time to catch you up. It's your responsibility to do your >> own homework, or to ask before a call begins. >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 5 July 2018 2:19 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Since i was not able to join the PC call this week and that we are already >>> at the DT call, may I please have in few bullet points what are our >>> positions with regards to the Charter? >>> >>> This will be super helpful. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Arsene >>> ------------------------ >>> *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* >>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi >>> international](http://www.rudiinternational.org), >>> CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](https://www.smart-kitoko.com/), [Mabingwa >>> Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com) >>> Tel: +243 993810967 >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>> >>> [2015 Mandela Washington >>> Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) >>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF >>> [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) >>> & >>> [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) >>> - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - >>> [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com) - ICANN's [GNSO >>> Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC >>> Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) >>> - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet >>> Freedom. >>> >>> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report >>> ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and >>> ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 15:46:49 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 14:46:49 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP DT Call today: What is our position? In-Reply-To: References: <4wi2gQCIuWJW-0Bg4ToVL9C7yU-ygF8wc9ycqdHoFregn3-vZuXXRGKjbPQZEhY-6-6b9SAIzaY9Szak8Ee-ti7H5drogqSu7ZHm4XoUzIo=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: My last comment on this thread is bellow. 2018-07-05 14:37 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline : > You are not even in the Adobe room - are you on the audio bridge? You should be able to see this by yourself, I don't see the point of this question. So, i will not respond to it. > It is not my responsibility - or the responsibility of others - to brief you > on this. You should do your own homework, and not expect others to keep you > informed. Just for the record, I didn't say it was the responsibility of anyone to brief me. So, thank you for the unecessary reminder. I was not able to attend the PC call (and sent my apologies to the list) nor be able to read the transcripts (for the same reasons). I asked for help from fellow councilors or PC members and I received it from someone ready to help. > Thanks, Arsene > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > On 5 July 2018 2:34 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > >> ?? >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> This was just another opportunity for you to keep quiet if you cannot >> >> help and not speaking on behalf of eveyone by using "we". >> >> FY, another member has kindly brieffed me already, after reading this. >> >> @All, please disregard this email. >> >> Regards, >> >> Arsene >> >> 2018-07-05 14:29 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline icann at ferdeline.com: >> >> > Hi Arsene, >> > >> > As I already told you - 20 minutes ago - the call has already began, so >> > we >> > >> > do not have the time to catch you up. It's your responsibility to do >> > your >> > >> > own homework, or to ask before a call begins. >> > >> > Ayden >> > >> > ??????? Original Message ??????? >> > >> > On 5 July 2018 2:19 PM, Ars?ne Tungali arsenebaguma at gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > Since i was not able to join the PC call this week and that we are >> > > already >> > > >> > > at the DT call, may I please have in few bullet points what are our >> > > >> > > positions with regards to the Charter? >> > > >> > > This will be super helpful. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > Arsene >> > > >> > > >> > > ------------------- >> > > >> > > Ars?ne Tungali >> > > >> > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudiinternational, >> > > >> > > CEO, Smart Services Sarl, MabingwaForum >> > > >> > > Tel: +243 993810967 >> > > >> > > GPG: 523644A0 >> > > >> > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> > > >> > > 2015 Mandela WashingtonFelllow >> > > >> > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF >> > > >> > > Brazil >> > > >> > > & >> > > >> > > Mexico) >> > > >> > > - AFRISIG 2016 - >> > > >> > > Blogger - ICANN's GNSOCouncil Member.AFRINIC >> > > >> > > Fellow(Mauritius) >> > > >> > > - IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet >> > > >> > > Freedom. >> > > >> > > >> > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report >> > > >> > > (English) and >> > > >> > > (French) >> >> -- >> >> Ars?ne Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali >> >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international >> >> http://www.rudiinternational.org, >> >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, *Mabingwa Forum >> >> http://www.mabingwa-forum.com* >> >> Tel: +243 993810967 >> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >> >> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html >> >> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors >> >> & Mexico >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors) >> >> - AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - Blogger >> >> http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council >> >> https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( >> >> Mauritius >> >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)* >> >> - *IGFSA Member http://www.igfsa.org/ - Internet Governance - Internet >> >> Freedom. >> >> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English >> >> http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234) and (French >> >> http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242) > > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 5 15:52:08 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 08:52:08 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP DT Call today: What is our position? In-Reply-To: References: <4wi2gQCIuWJW-0Bg4ToVL9C7yU-ygF8wc9ycqdHoFregn3-vZuXXRGKjbPQZEhY-6-6b9SAIzaY9Szak8Ee-ti7H5drogqSu7ZHm4XoUzIo=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: > You should be able to see this by yourself, I don't see the point of > > this question. So, i will not respond to it. Yes, I can see this, and you are not in the room, despite this being a very important call. ?Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 5 July 2018 2:46 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > ?? > > My last comment on this thread is bellow. > > 2018-07-05 14:37 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline icann at ferdeline.com: > > > You are not even in the Adobe room - are you on the audio bridge? > > You should be able to see this by yourself, I don't see the point of > > this question. So, i will not respond to it. > > > It is not my responsibility - or the responsibility of others - to brief you > > > > on this. You should do your own homework, and not expect others to keep you > > > > informed. > > Just for the record, I didn't say it was the responsibility of anyone > > to brief me. So, thank you for the unecessary reminder. > > I was not able to attend the PC call (and sent my apologies to the > > list) nor be able to read the transcripts (for the same reasons). I > > asked for help from fellow councilors or PC members and I received it > > from someone ready to help. > > > > > Thanks, > > Arsene > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > > > On 5 July 2018 2:34 PM, Ars?ne Tungali arsenebaguma at gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Hi Ayden, > > > > > > This was just another opportunity for you to keep quiet if you cannot > > > > > > help and not speaking on behalf of eveyone by using "we". > > > > > > FY, another member has kindly brieffed me already, after reading this. > > > > > > @All, please disregard this email. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Arsene > > > > > > 2018-07-05 14:29 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline icann at ferdeline.com: > > > > > > > Hi Arsene, > > > > > > > > As I already told you - 20 minutes ago - the call has already began, so > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > do not have the time to catch you up. It's your responsibility to do > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > own homework, or to ask before a call begins. > > > > > > > > Ayden > > > > > > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > > > > > > > On 5 July 2018 2:19 PM, Ars?ne Tungali arsenebaguma at gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Since i was not able to join the PC call this week and that we are > > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > at the DT call, may I please have in few bullet points what are our > > > > > > > > > > positions with regards to the Charter? > > > > > > > > > > This will be super helpful. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Arsene > > > > > > > > > > Ars?ne Tungali > > > > > > > > > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudiinternational, > > > > > > > > > > CEO, Smart Services Sarl, MabingwaForum > > > > > > > > > > Tel: +243 993810967 > > > > > > > > > > GPG: 523644A0 > > > > > > > > > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > > > > > > > > > 2015 Mandela WashingtonFelllow > > > > > > > > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF > > > > > > > > > > Brazil > > > > > > > > > > & > > > > > > > > > > Mexico) > > > > > > > > > > - AFRISIG 2016 - > > > > > > > > > > Blogger - ICANN's GNSOCouncil Member.AFRINIC > > > > > > > > > > Fellow(Mauritius) > > > > > > > > > > - IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet > > > > > > > > > > Freedom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report > > > > > > > > > > (English) and > > > > > > > > > > (French) > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Ars?ne Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali > > > > > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international > > > > > > http://www.rudiinternational.org, > > > > > > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, *Mabingwa Forum > > > > > > http://www.mabingwa-forum.com* > > > > > > Tel: +243 993810967 > > > > > > GPG: 523644A0 > > > > > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > > > > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > > > > > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > > > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > > > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors > > > > > > & Mexico > > > > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors) > > > > > > - AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - Blogger > > > > > > http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council > > > > > > https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( > > > > > > Mauritius > > > > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)* > > > > > > - *IGFSA Member http://www.igfsa.org/ - Internet Governance - Internet > > > > > > Freedom. > > > > > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English > > > > > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234) and (French > > > > > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242) > > -- > > Ars?ne Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international > > http://www.rudiinternational.org, > > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, *Mabingwa Forum > > http://www.mabingwa-forum.com* > > Tel: +243 993810967 > > GPG: 523644A0 > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors > > & Mexico > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors) > > - AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - Blogger > > http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council > > https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( > > Mauritius > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)* > > - *IGFSA Member http://www.igfsa.org/ - Internet Governance - Internet > > Freedom. > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234) and (French > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242) From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 15:57:32 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 14:57:32 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP DT Call today: What is our position? In-Reply-To: References: <4wi2gQCIuWJW-0Bg4ToVL9C7yU-ygF8wc9ycqdHoFregn3-vZuXXRGKjbPQZEhY-6-6b9SAIzaY9Szak8Ee-ti7H5drogqSu7ZHm4XoUzIo=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Just for the record, I am on Audio bridge (due to connectivity issues) since the beginning of this important meeting, Ayden. I thought you could note it from the AC room, my apologies if this is not possible. Thanks, Arsene 2018-07-05 14:52 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline : >> You should be able to see this by yourself, I don't see the point of >> >> this question. So, i will not respond to it. > > Yes, I can see this, and you are not in the room, despite this being a very > important call. > > ?Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > On 5 July 2018 2:46 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > >> ?? >> >> My last comment on this thread is bellow. >> >> 2018-07-05 14:37 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline icann at ferdeline.com: >> >> > You are not even in the Adobe room - are you on the audio bridge? >> >> You should be able to see this by yourself, I don't see the point of >> >> this question. So, i will not respond to it. >> >> > It is not my responsibility - or the responsibility of others - to brief >> > you >> > >> > on this. You should do your own homework, and not expect others to keep >> > you >> > >> > informed. >> >> Just for the record, I didn't say it was the responsibility of anyone >> >> to brief me. So, thank you for the unecessary reminder. >> >> I was not able to attend the PC call (and sent my apologies to the >> >> list) nor be able to read the transcripts (for the same reasons). I >> >> asked for help from fellow councilors or PC members and I received it >> >> from someone ready to help. >> >> > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Arsene >> >> > ??????? Original Message ??????? >> > >> > On 5 July 2018 2:34 PM, Ars?ne Tungali arsenebaguma at gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Ayden, >> > > >> > > This was just another opportunity for you to keep quiet if you cannot >> > > >> > > help and not speaking on behalf of eveyone by using "we". >> > > >> > > FY, another member has kindly brieffed me already, after reading >> > > this. >> > > >> > > @All, please disregard this email. >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > >> > > Arsene >> > > >> > > 2018-07-05 14:29 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline icann at ferdeline.com: >> > > >> > > > Hi Arsene, >> > > > >> > > > As I already told you - 20 minutes ago - the call has already began, >> > > > so >> > > > >> > > > we >> > > > >> > > > do not have the time to catch you up. It's your responsibility to >> > > > do >> > > > >> > > > your >> > > > >> > > > own homework, or to ask before a call begins. >> > > > >> > > > Ayden >> > > > >> > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? >> > > > >> > > > On 5 July 2018 2:19 PM, Ars?ne Tungali arsenebaguma at gmail.com >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi all, >> > > > > >> > > > > Since i was not able to join the PC call this week and that we >> > > > > are >> > > > > >> > > > > already >> > > > > >> > > > > at the DT call, may I please have in few bullet points what are >> > > > > our >> > > > > >> > > > > positions with regards to the Charter? >> > > > > >> > > > > This will be super helpful. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > >> > > > > Arsene >> > > > > >> > > > > Ars?ne Tungali >> > > > > >> > > > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudiinternational, >> > > > > >> > > > > CEO, Smart Services Sarl, MabingwaForum >> > > > > >> > > > > Tel: +243 993810967 >> > > > > >> > > > > GPG: 523644A0 >> > > > > >> > > > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> > > > > >> > > > > 2015 Mandela WashingtonFelllow >> > > > > >> > > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF >> > > > > >> > > > > Brazil >> > > > > >> > > > > & >> > > > > >> > > > > Mexico) >> > > > > >> > > > > - AFRISIG 2016 - >> > > > > >> > > > > Blogger - ICANN's GNSOCouncil Member.AFRINIC >> > > > > >> > > > > Fellow(Mauritius) >> > > > > >> > > > > - IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet >> > > > > >> > > > > Freedom. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report >> > > > > >> > > > > (English) and >> > > > > >> > > > > (French) >> > > >> > > -- >> > > >> > > Ars?ne Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali >> > > >> > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international >> > > >> > > http://www.rudiinternational.org, >> > > >> > > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, *Mabingwa >> > > Forum >> > > >> > > http://www.mabingwa-forum.com* >> > > >> > > Tel: +243 993810967 >> > > >> > > GPG: 523644A0 >> > > >> > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> > > >> > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >> > > >> > > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html >> > > >> > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >> > > >> > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors >> > > >> > > & Mexico >> > > >> > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors) >> > > >> > > - AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - >> > > Blogger >> > > >> > > http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council >> > > >> > > https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC >> > > Fellow ( >> > > >> > > Mauritius >> > > >> > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)* >> > > >> > > - *IGFSA Member http://www.igfsa.org/ - Internet Governance - >> > > Internet >> > > >> > > Freedom. >> > > >> > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English >> > > >> > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234) and (French >> > > >> > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242) >> >> -- >> >> Ars?ne Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali >> >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international >> >> http://www.rudiinternational.org, >> >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, *Mabingwa Forum >> >> http://www.mabingwa-forum.com* >> >> Tel: +243 993810967 >> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >> >> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html >> >> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors >> >> & Mexico >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors) >> >> - AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - Blogger >> >> http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council >> >> https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( >> >> Mauritius >> >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)* >> >> - *IGFSA Member http://www.igfsa.org/ - Internet Governance - Internet >> >> Freedom. >> >> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English >> >> http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234) and (French >> >> http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242) > > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 5 16:00:29 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 09:00:29 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP DT Call today: What is our position? In-Reply-To: References: <4wi2gQCIuWJW-0Bg4ToVL9C7yU-ygF8wc9ycqdHoFregn3-vZuXXRGKjbPQZEhY-6-6b9SAIzaY9Szak8Ee-ti7H5drogqSu7ZHm4XoUzIo=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I asked you if you were on the audio bridge, to which you responded: "I don't see the point of this question. So, i will not respond to it." If i could see that from the Adobe room, I would not have asked. ?Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 5 July 2018 2:57 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > ?? > > Just for the record, I am on Audio bridge (due to connectivity issues) > > since the beginning of this important meeting, Ayden. > > I thought you could note it from the AC room, my apologies if this is > > not possible. > > Thanks, > > Arsene > > 2018-07-05 14:52 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline icann at ferdeline.com: > > > > You should be able to see this by yourself, I don't see the point of > > > > > > this question. So, i will not respond to it. > > > > Yes, I can see this, and you are not in the room, despite this being a very > > > > important call. > > > > Ayden > > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > > > On 5 July 2018 2:46 PM, Ars?ne Tungali arsenebaguma at gmail.com wrote: > > > > > My last comment on this thread is bellow. > > > > > > 2018-07-05 14:37 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline icann at ferdeline.com: > > > > > > > You are not even in the Adobe room - are you on the audio bridge? > > > > > > You should be able to see this by yourself, I don't see the point of > > > > > > this question. So, i will not respond to it. > > > > > > > It is not my responsibility - or the responsibility of others - to brief > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > on this. You should do your own homework, and not expect others to keep > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > informed. > > > > > > Just for the record, I didn't say it was the responsibility of anyone > > > > > > to brief me. So, thank you for the unecessary reminder. > > > > > > I was not able to attend the PC call (and sent my apologies to the > > > > > > list) nor be able to read the transcripts (for the same reasons). I > > > > > > asked for help from fellow councilors or PC members and I received it > > > > > > from someone ready to help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Arsene > > > > > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > > > > > > > On 5 July 2018 2:34 PM, Ars?ne Tungali arsenebaguma at gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Ayden, > > > > > > > > > > This was just another opportunity for you to keep quiet if you cannot > > > > > > > > > > help and not speaking on behalf of eveyone by using "we". > > > > > > > > > > FY, another member has kindly brieffed me already, after reading > > > > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > @All, please disregard this email. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Arsene > > > > > > > > > > 2018-07-05 14:29 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline icann at ferdeline.com: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Arsene, > > > > > > > > > > > > As I already told you - 20 minutes ago - the call has already began, > > > > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > do not have the time to catch you up. It's your responsibility to > > > > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > own homework, or to ask before a call begins. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ayden > > > > > > > > > > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5 July 2018 2:19 PM, Ars?ne Tungali arsenebaguma at gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since i was not able to join the PC call this week and that we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the DT call, may I please have in few bullet points what are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > > > > > positions with regards to the Charter? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will be super helpful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Arsene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ars?ne Tungali > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudiinternational, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CEO, Smart Services Sarl, MabingwaForum > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tel: +243 993810967 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GPG: 523644A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2015 Mandela WashingtonFelllow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brazil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mexico) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - AFRISIG 2016 - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Blogger - ICANN's GNSOCouncil Member.AFRINIC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fellow(Mauritius) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Freedom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (English) and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (French) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Ars?ne Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali > > > > > > > > > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international > > > > > > > > > > http://www.rudiinternational.org, > > > > > > > > > > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, *Mabingwa > > > > > > > > > > Forum > > > > > > > > > > http://www.mabingwa-forum.com* > > > > > > > > > > Tel: +243 993810967 > > > > > > > > > > GPG: 523644A0 > > > > > > > > > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > > > > > > > > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > > > > > > > > > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > > > > > > > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > > > > > > > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors > > > > > > > > > > & Mexico > > > > > > > > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors) > > > > > > > > > > - AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - > > > > > > > > > > Blogger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council > > > > > > > > > > https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC > > > > > > > > > > Fellow ( > > > > > > > > > > Mauritius > > > > > > > > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)* > > > > > > > > > > - *IGFSA Member http://www.igfsa.org/ - Internet Governance - > > > > > > > > > > Internet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Freedom. > > > > > > > > > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English > > > > > > > > > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234) and (French > > > > > > > > > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242) > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Ars?ne Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali > > > > > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international > > > > > > http://www.rudiinternational.org, > > > > > > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, *Mabingwa Forum > > > > > > http://www.mabingwa-forum.com* > > > > > > Tel: +243 993810967 > > > > > > GPG: 523644A0 > > > > > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > > > > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > > > > > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > > > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > > > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors > > > > > > & Mexico > > > > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors) > > > > > > - AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - Blogger > > > > > > http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council > > > > > > https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( > > > > > > Mauritius > > > > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)* > > > > > > - *IGFSA Member http://www.igfsa.org/ - Internet Governance - Internet > > > > > > Freedom. > > > > > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English > > > > > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234) and (French > > > > > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242) > > -- > > Ars?ne Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international > > http://www.rudiinternational.org, > > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, *Mabingwa Forum > > http://www.mabingwa-forum.com* > > Tel: +243 993810967 > > GPG: 523644A0 > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors > > & Mexico > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors) > > - AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - Blogger > > http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council > > https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( > > Mauritius > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)* > > - *IGFSA Member http://www.igfsa.org/ - Internet Governance - Internet > > Freedom. > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234) and (French > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242) From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 16:05:36 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 22:05:36 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP DT Call today: What is our position? In-Reply-To: References: <4wi2gQCIuWJW-0Bg4ToVL9C7yU-ygF8wc9ycqdHoFregn3-vZuXXRGKjbPQZEhY-6-6b9SAIzaY9Szak8Ee-ti7H5drogqSu7ZHm4XoUzIo=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Gents, please stop this and let's focus on what matters. points were made and taken, we are in the middle of an important call. this kind of interaction reflects badly on you and the rest of us. we are here to help each other. yes, we can give briefing but also everyone as councillor needs to do his homework. we all are under pressure this week and we got to get this EPDP done. Rafik Le jeu. 5 juil. 2018 ? 22:00, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > I asked you if you were on the audio bridge, to which you responded: "I > don't see the point of this question. So, i will not respond to it." > > If i could see that from the Adobe room, I would not have asked. > > ?Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > On 5 July 2018 2:57 PM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > > > ?? > > > > Just for the record, I am on Audio bridge (due to connectivity issues) > > > > since the beginning of this important meeting, Ayden. > > > > I thought you could note it from the AC room, my apologies if this is > > > > not possible. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Arsene > > > > 2018-07-05 14:52 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline icann at ferdeline.com: > > > > > > You should be able to see this by yourself, I don't see the point of > > > > > > > > this question. So, i will not respond to it. > > > > > > Yes, I can see this, and you are not in the room, despite this being a > very > > > > > > important call. > > > > > > Ayden > > > > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > > > > > On 5 July 2018 2:46 PM, Ars?ne Tungali arsenebaguma at gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > My last comment on this thread is bellow. > > > > > > > > 2018-07-05 14:37 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline icann at ferdeline.com: > > > > > > > > > You are not even in the Adobe room - are you on the audio bridge? > > > > > > > > You should be able to see this by yourself, I don't see the point of > > > > > > > > this question. So, i will not respond to it. > > > > > > > > > It is not my responsibility - or the responsibility of others - to > brief > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > on this. You should do your own homework, and not expect others to > keep > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > informed. > > > > > > > > Just for the record, I didn't say it was the responsibility of anyone > > > > > > > > to brief me. So, thank you for the unecessary reminder. > > > > > > > > I was not able to attend the PC call (and sent my apologies to the > > > > > > > > list) nor be able to read the transcripts (for the same reasons). I > > > > > > > > asked for help from fellow councilors or PC members and I received it > > > > > > > > from someone ready to help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Arsene > > > > > > > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > > > > > > > > > On 5 July 2018 2:34 PM, Ars?ne Tungali arsenebaguma at gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ayden, > > > > > > > > > > > > This was just another opportunity for you to keep quiet if you > cannot > > > > > > > > > > > > help and not speaking on behalf of eveyone by using "we". > > > > > > > > > > > > FY, another member has kindly brieffed me already, after reading > > > > > > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > @All, please disregard this email. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Arsene > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-07-05 14:29 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline icann at ferdeline.com: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Arsene, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I already told you - 20 minutes ago - the call has already > began, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not have the time to catch you up. It's your responsibility > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > own homework, or to ask before a call begins. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ayden > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5 July 2018 2:19 PM, Ars?ne Tungali arsenebaguma at gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since i was not able to join the PC call this week and that > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the DT call, may I please have in few bullet points what > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > positions with regards to the Charter? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will be super helpful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Arsene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ars?ne Tungali > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudiinternational, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CEO, Smart Services Sarl, MabingwaForum > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tel: +243 993810967 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GPG: 523644A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2015 Mandela WashingtonFelllow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brazil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mexico) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - AFRISIG 2016 - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Blogger - ICANN's GNSOCouncil Member.AFRINIC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fellow(Mauritius) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Freedom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (English) and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (French) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Ars?ne Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali > > > > > > > > > > > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.rudiinternational.org, > > > > > > > > > > > > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, > *Mabingwa > > > > > > > > > > > > Forum > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.mabingwa-forum.com* > > > > > > > > > > > > Tel: +243 993810967 > > > > > > > > > > > > GPG: 523644A0 > > > > > > > > > > > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > > > > > > > > > > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > > > > > > > > > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors > > > > > > > > > > > > & Mexico > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > - AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ > - > > > > > > > > > > > > Blogger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC > > > > > > > > > > > > Fellow ( > > > > > > > > > > > > Mauritius > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)* > > > > > > > > > > > > - *IGFSA Member http://www.igfsa.org/ - Internet Governance - > > > > > > > > > > > > Internet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Freedom. > > > > > > > > > > > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English > > > > > > > > > > > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234) and (French > > > > > > > > > > > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Ars?ne Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali > > > > > > > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international > > > > > > > > http://www.rudiinternational.org, > > > > > > > > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, *Mabingwa > Forum > > > > > > > > http://www.mabingwa-forum.com* > > > > > > > > Tel: +243 993810967 > > > > > > > > GPG: 523644A0 > > > > > > > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > > > > > > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > > > > > > > > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > > > > > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > > > > > > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors > > > > > > > > & Mexico > > > > > > > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors > ) > > > > > > > > - AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - > Blogger > > > > > > > > http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council > > > > > > > > https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC > Fellow ( > > > > > > > > Mauritius > > > > > > > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)* > > > > > > > > - *IGFSA Member http://www.igfsa.org/ - Internet Governance - > Internet > > > > > > > > Freedom. > > > > > > > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English > > > > > > > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234) and (French > > > > > > > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242) > > > > -- > > > > Ars?ne Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali > > > > Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international > > > > http://www.rudiinternational.org, > > > > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, *Mabingwa > Forum > > > > http://www.mabingwa-forum.com* > > > > Tel: +243 993810967 > > > > GPG: 523644A0 > > > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > > > > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors > > > > & Mexico > > > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors > ) > > > > - AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - > Blogger > > > > http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council > > > > https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC Fellow > ( > > > > Mauritius > > > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)* > > > > - *IGFSA Member http://www.igfsa.org/ - Internet Governance - Internet > > > > Freedom. > > > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English > > > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234) and (French > > > > http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242) > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 6 03:19:43 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 20:19:43 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: EDPD Leadership Comments Table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All of my edits were rejected. Good luck to everyone else who spends their afternoon reviewing the 8 different Google Docs. I hope some of you edits are accepted... Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Marika Konings (Google Docs) <[d+MTEwMTI0MDYyNTI4MDYxMzUzOTA3-MTEyMDY2MDg3OTg4NTE1NjM0MDc2 at docs.google.com](mailto:d%2BMTEwMTI0MDYyNTI4MDYxMzUzOTA3-MTEyMDY2MDg3OTg4NTE1NjM0MDc2 at docs.google.com)> > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 at 00:02 > Subject: EDPD Leadership Comments Table > To: > > Marika Konings resolved suggestions in [EDPD Leadership Comments Table](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkM&ts=5b3e955f&usp=comment_email_document) > > Resolved > > 24 rejected suggestions > > Resolved > > Suggestions > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Add: "as and" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdXYXig_LvoskS-eBAVneoHTeLxPvHJPSP55DaxF37Na774RnMwVSeXxoKr_LRYzOthC-cphLDgiyPpwKbsMg0DcFykP62JGgTt5OIuuumY3uveUu4 at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkM&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Replace: "versus. participating as an EPDP Team member" with ", and not to make personal interventions" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpReN0nGb6rPmqGoJmhr6A019xuRbQsZP5tmJVHqGSg-A4HoCnipfPwwxbB6dTadkPzCT5fpEkRXNkqROvLV34906wyM0Yz9GCVECpn8myqTS3suoeqg at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkI&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Replace: "her" with "the EPDP in their official" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcocxvV6fJMlU34sYNiXR3tjhbkV547x6mgPvUQxBFhV8gwOQJFMlMTgpR0mz2CmPvvc064Yo6GsIrjrQN1BRimwbS64VGe-Z4Ao_jO-QSQ3Wv88VM at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkE&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Replace: "Will make clear when he/she is acting" with "Only participate" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcz8Ho21DqHezbWyCk22b7jPW_xdmcw3oXWUrttIIV_supO65J3lmc8qCGsdIhOBbrTosqpTaAATPciNG_qeLdQFw45pOqDduslo9UW0qMkLQ7jgPQ at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkA&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Replace: "in" with "on calls in their official" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdDiYY7WbBShhMG6P6-xMh8dbtEpOnaja2fW94P2po3XzWFwy3cuBoGRLGmjC70CxTVwD8FPRmz7ztXijhc1gJftgMpFvflLUotugR9HBLjvfnnfsY at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sj4&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Delete: "ing" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRfTznDurVJ-EdwUPgYXbhKOTfRMwc3xWh-RxfjbNCl8xkdgW92dgO_WKPrFRS_dmAD8tKP_hPiv2OIsMRniQOiuQ5raWHZwz-jQ3AwWE1mvwUF2BVw at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sj0&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Replace: "make it explicitly clear when he/she is" with "channel such comments through the representatives of his or her Stakeholder Group, and to only" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRd219ABodPg_BH4cT5ZM2sny8sshk3d4KPI8np1ZjTeLhXLrz5quwjVscl7tQsnS1KcWHUGPY1_eCR1fsNTg_oNxYJ58bcNYhsY1JJZnkeRzAbfu78 at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjw&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Replace: "," with ";" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcFN2ClhUO6T4rIqp8NORym59WLlF6OLCrcDDC4scoykyFK9c1lhuU6begRodUzBU_k-T7zuA76E9f_yuJcMbIUf4YBHOsC7bJWl8EYTEcigpzuvGA at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjs&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Replace: "/" with "or" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRd2opzZZhJbu-Vmq58AFc5kSzZglNGMdlpd-EfUNYnTGJG1tCBLgngQ4ig43ifIQEqvy13olOc7vHAlVCzEAKpxus7VMi9SF61V17LQOnDMX4YJ5Z8 at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjo&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Replace: "/" with "or" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdbfZv_oRb_o0GRnR2pdKREeAgGA_RueKlBjx9GlaSIuZ8fumyGRpsUam42uyrzDNWkvwF7VwcqJt1ve7ScFca_9JdGFYI6Dus80AkjP_2yD14OfUA at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjk&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Delete: "wish" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcH66en_U6q1tVy2P0PmNhnOSlbf6ojlKqFem1MnvDIEZHl-lAjzqr-5q5FVd5LdARAtzKn_0omg9A_fRJ4_6dbQhkP6ph6m1SzbOU9nblAZxhcchM at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjg&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Replace: "Should" with "It would not be appropriate for" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcs3N9YUmMy-cw55LzT1AOLwiTKSJPGSCElvDK2AGybQGPNP_yBvC2lnZjA-RJOByg4fjn3P7u5cnd0AQYOsns_3hTF9tCxqNbu_zZeeI14CRoyItI at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjc&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Add: "In addition:" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcOh-rxK36Hz_xPQzPduMAdvtSA1AUAfb4avUkbmNtY0w79Taztjd10-tUt22PeOQWBRq1gJWPwg-zA_sLYzzlw_7PVHFmGlwFeijSheHFbXHWOntc at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SjY&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Add: "shall" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRc9L1FDN9D6Bk54nkDn0RHPqdkV0GE1qLX12R0WjAKP_Wixsk7nM77Esn-HHZDky3CQ12r1YfbOCzSvUcW3KQmpPtjjYSoEEOs6rGp-FZeiFo46GOA at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SjU&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Delete: "Council recommends the" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRclWjwBQ4PkGBQ03bnTQ3Y7rEAVrcVOMhTSVZ0WyIyGaTotxsdVYNS8uCrDQTz2pFqEK5UsYaU2AM1k8rOuy-D74kw8HnXgd0TYpVhyMTaz2OLy5_A at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SjQ&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Add: "GNSO" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRfvvrsA4zg3SEsl5lQTLxLMQt7HUsPNmbwOgRAnY4uJw02YhQ3XUI3yh4YlzsAv1QTg_guy4AUo83arzb4MANhLJ3qrAq6K1tZXunrVpJWbSgDk9Tc at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SjM&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Add: "Given the importance of this working group it is recommended that the liaison be ex-officio a member?" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRd48AH_cc4V3-PtbrsaPWGr85ZVUFk9FMXdg5MR8Jz9eO8bWXxpTG4hscm0GpAMcG3BIjFyCb1fk7FkG02fdjzwVLyNBGR8SBE18f7uN9ZfF1WU2Ug at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Si0&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Delete space > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdQb4Q-jUmSEth8mlCU3_2s5U_UWlIZ8Q8jiYO4zuigP0KYH6C7E64f0aPxi2lP0tvmzh9DVKGAaqaH5-21QZy9HajbyX_t6QF_ecDMGXDq6aZsPGU at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SiU&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Add: "is practical if" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpReznISg-covFsT4Yipg17znQ0KJLCA7Gzb58C9V85vbqREbTA05nnrjkOF6VVgAY-vRzyw9YHQDxfHxo0OfkmdN4MXouGNIO-tcf4Vm_TvmXIkZaDM at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SiQ&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Add: "adequate" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdg1jJ0a1dU0jOfyGPSsY7jWCe3bVRdO8QG18rfENCjmS2fNdE1EnjbcG6-NJ3B80WTdVuY8URUxEIMe-wNAz4lNw2PljgkKBqnrDQdoJojXqO2Z2o at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SiM&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Add: "in order" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRfZXu2qFRoffIR7ydUr9B1ppaPJS086J056m33c3-EKVherShwOoXIFeAFdnkF89rwQR0ZVdsA4eq8I9z8ZwsWhlfQBeyMZnuHs1i1dqicxpA9dOIc at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SiI&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Delete space > > Add: "-" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRd684qP9DR42OeKJt5ln9RoB0gBwbbuKsEqeVoxrYT3zllxfoOklpdONRAPQ6DJGXKSps92s7lI65ORYJaBrkG3ANxgbGffrdH818BgfenntHKk3NQ at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SiE&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Delete space > > Add: "-" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpReB_v8CA4vDSQmmfKtgJDQ3NEzerqSixIVQ71H7Sm931k8qODTLrli2t6zK3Dmhjjl-ILLiwcpHPm_yWCopBxVkWpwlwPW_B8kknjneR80E2j-V-68 at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SiA&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline > > Delete: "do his/her best to" > > [Marika Konings] Marika Konings > > Rejected suggestion > > [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdKyb2XX0A0rlr5UFohwrQ33G3ceqzTBG_MJ9MvUJcISSf6mFfHzr7RjaBXHnnnW-3vvHlZ2RiArxZFXU1bS5FmjOOzE-kPf4AudfxLb8n5fqoLPRM at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sh8&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) > > Google LLC, [1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA](https://maps.google.com/?q=1600+Amphitheatre+Parkway,+Mountain+View,+CA+94043,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g) > > You have received this email because you are a participant in the updated discussion threads.[Change what Google Docs sends you.](https://docs.google.com/document/u/110124062528061353907/docos/notify?id=1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk&title=EDPD+Leadership+Comments+Table)You cannot reply to this email. > -- > > Ayden Fabien F?rdeline +44.77.8018.7421 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.png Type: image/png Size: 943 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 04:54:21 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:54:21 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: EDPD Leadership Comments Table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I think the edits were reinstated. Marika sent communication a few hours ago: "As a reminder, please do not redline the current text in the charter which appears in the first section of the document, but instead, please provide your comments / proposed edits as part of the comments / suggestions section." Best, Rafik Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 09:19, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > All of my edits were rejected. Good luck to everyone else who spends their > afternoon reviewing the 8 different Google Docs. I hope some of you edits > are accepted... > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Marika Konings (Google Docs) < > d+MTEwMTI0MDYyNTI4MDYxMzUzOTA3-MTEyMDY2MDg3OTg4NTE1NjM0MDc2 at docs.google.com> > > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 at 00:02 > Subject: EDPD Leadership Comments Table > To: > > > Marika Konings resolved suggestions in EDPD Leadership Comments Table > > *Resolved* > 24 rejected suggestions > Resolved > Suggestions > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Add: "as and" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Replace: "versus. participating as an EPDP Team member" with ", and not > to make personal interventions" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Replace: "her" with "the EPDP in their official" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Replace: "Will make clear when he/she is acting" with "Only participate" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Replace: "in" with "on calls in their official" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Delete: "ing" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Replace: "make it explicitly clear when he/she is" with "channel such > comments through the representatives of his or her Stakeholder Group, and > to only" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Replace: "," with ";" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Replace: "/" with "or" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Replace: "/" with "or" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Delete: "wish" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Replace: "Should" with "It would not be appropriate for" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Add: "In addition:" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > Add: "shall" > > [image: Marika Konings] > *Marika Konings* > > *Rejected suggestion* > Reply > > Open > > [image: Ayden F?rdeline] > *Ayden F?rdeline* > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Jul 6 07:01:05 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 00:01:05 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: EDPD Leadership Comments Table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: yuck! SP On 2018-07-05 20:19, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > All of my edits were rejected. Good luck to everyone else who spends > their afternoon reviewing the 8 different Google Docs. I hope some of > you edits are accepted... > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Marika Konings (Google Docs) >> > > >> >> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 at 00:02 >> Subject: EDPD Leadership Comments Table >> To: > >> >> >> Marika Konings resolved suggestions in EDPD Leadership Comments >> Table >> >> >> *Resolved* >> >> 24 rejected suggestions >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Resolved >> >> >> Suggestions >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Add: "as and" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "versus. participating as an EPDP Team member" with ", and >> not to make personal interventions" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "her" with "the EPDP in their official" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "Will make clear when he/she is acting" with "Only participate" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "in" with "on calls in their official" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Delete: "ing" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "make it explicitly clear when he/she is" with "channel such >> comments through the representatives of his or her Stakeholder Group, >> and to only" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "," with ";" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "/" with "or" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "/" with "or" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Delete: "wish" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "Should" with "It would not be appropriate for" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Add: "In addition:" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Add: "shall" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Delete: "Council recommends the" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Add: "GNSO" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Add: "Given the importance of this working group it is recommended >> that the liaison be ex-officio a member?" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Delete space >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Add: "is practical if" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Add: "adequate" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Add: "in order" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Delete space >> Add: "-" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Delete space >> Add: "-" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Delete: "do his/her best to" >> >> Marika Konings >> >> *Marika Konings* >> >> /Rejected suggestion/ >> >> Reply >> Open >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA >> >> >> >> You have received this email because you are a participant in the >> updated discussion threads.Change what Google Docs sends you. >> You >> cannot reply to this email. >> >> >> >> -- >> Ayden Fabien F?rdeline +44.77.8018.7421 > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.png Type: image/png Size: 943 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 6 08:41:20 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 01:41:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: EDPD Leadership Comments Table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No, I think they were not reinstated. It really defeats the point of using Google Doc if we cannot change the text ourselves and need to instead discuss changes in the "comments / suggestions section." Even typos were rejected; ie "fact" could not be replaced with "face." I guess I will first have to justify correcting this obvious typo. I don?t see how this is easier for anyone. I haven?t reviewed all of the documents to see if others edits were rejected, too ? but I do think we should be marking up the text instead, as it is this easier for everyone to know what proposal is on the table. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 03:54, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > I think the edits were reinstated. Marika sent communication a few hours ago: > > "As a reminder, please do not redline the current text in the charter which appears in the first section of the document, but instead, please provide your comments / proposed edits as part of the comments / suggestions section." > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 09:19, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> All of my edits were rejected. Good luck to everyone else who spends their afternoon reviewing the 8 different Google Docs. I hope some of you edits are accepted... >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Marika Konings (Google Docs) <[d+MTEwMTI0MDYyNTI4MDYxMzUzOTA3-MTEyMDY2MDg3OTg4NTE1NjM0MDc2 at docs.google.com](mailto:d%2BMTEwMTI0MDYyNTI4MDYxMzUzOTA3-MTEyMDY2MDg3OTg4NTE1NjM0MDc2 at docs.google.com)> >>> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 at 00:02 >>> Subject: EDPD Leadership Comments Table >>> To: >>> >>> Marika Konings resolved suggestions in [EDPD Leadership Comments Table](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkM&ts=5b3e955f&usp=comment_email_document) >>> >>> Resolved >>> >>> 24 rejected suggestions >>> >>> Resolved >>> >>> Suggestions >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Add: "as and" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdXYXig_LvoskS-eBAVneoHTeLxPvHJPSP55DaxF37Na774RnMwVSeXxoKr_LRYzOthC-cphLDgiyPpwKbsMg0DcFykP62JGgTt5OIuuumY3uveUu4 at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkM&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Replace: "versus. participating as an EPDP Team member" with ", and not to make personal interventions" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpReN0nGb6rPmqGoJmhr6A019xuRbQsZP5tmJVHqGSg-A4HoCnipfPwwxbB6dTadkPzCT5fpEkRXNkqROvLV34906wyM0Yz9GCVECpn8myqTS3suoeqg at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkI&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Replace: "her" with "the EPDP in their official" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcocxvV6fJMlU34sYNiXR3tjhbkV547x6mgPvUQxBFhV8gwOQJFMlMTgpR0mz2CmPvvc064Yo6GsIrjrQN1BRimwbS64VGe-Z4Ao_jO-QSQ3Wv88VM at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkE&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Replace: "Will make clear when he/she is acting" with "Only participate" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcz8Ho21DqHezbWyCk22b7jPW_xdmcw3oXWUrttIIV_supO65J3lmc8qCGsdIhOBbrTosqpTaAATPciNG_qeLdQFw45pOqDduslo9UW0qMkLQ7jgPQ at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkA&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Replace: "in" with "on calls in their official" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdDiYY7WbBShhMG6P6-xMh8dbtEpOnaja2fW94P2po3XzWFwy3cuBoGRLGmjC70CxTVwD8FPRmz7ztXijhc1gJftgMpFvflLUotugR9HBLjvfnnfsY at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sj4&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Delete: "ing" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRfTznDurVJ-EdwUPgYXbhKOTfRMwc3xWh-RxfjbNCl8xkdgW92dgO_WKPrFRS_dmAD8tKP_hPiv2OIsMRniQOiuQ5raWHZwz-jQ3AwWE1mvwUF2BVw at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sj0&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Replace: "make it explicitly clear when he/she is" with "channel such comments through the representatives of his or her Stakeholder Group, and to only" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRd219ABodPg_BH4cT5ZM2sny8sshk3d4KPI8np1ZjTeLhXLrz5quwjVscl7tQsnS1KcWHUGPY1_eCR1fsNTg_oNxYJ58bcNYhsY1JJZnkeRzAbfu78 at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjw&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Replace: "," with ";" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcFN2ClhUO6T4rIqp8NORym59WLlF6OLCrcDDC4scoykyFK9c1lhuU6begRodUzBU_k-T7zuA76E9f_yuJcMbIUf4YBHOsC7bJWl8EYTEcigpzuvGA at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjs&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Replace: "/" with "or" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRd2opzZZhJbu-Vmq58AFc5kSzZglNGMdlpd-EfUNYnTGJG1tCBLgngQ4ig43ifIQEqvy13olOc7vHAlVCzEAKpxus7VMi9SF61V17LQOnDMX4YJ5Z8 at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjo&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Replace: "/" with "or" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdbfZv_oRb_o0GRnR2pdKREeAgGA_RueKlBjx9GlaSIuZ8fumyGRpsUam42uyrzDNWkvwF7VwcqJt1ve7ScFca_9JdGFYI6Dus80AkjP_2yD14OfUA at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjk&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Delete: "wish" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcH66en_U6q1tVy2P0PmNhnOSlbf6ojlKqFem1MnvDIEZHl-lAjzqr-5q5FVd5LdARAtzKn_0omg9A_fRJ4_6dbQhkP6ph6m1SzbOU9nblAZxhcchM at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjg&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Replace: "Should" with "It would not be appropriate for" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcs3N9YUmMy-cw55LzT1AOLwiTKSJPGSCElvDK2AGybQGPNP_yBvC2lnZjA-RJOByg4fjn3P7u5cnd0AQYOsns_3hTF9tCxqNbu_zZeeI14CRoyItI at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjc&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Add: "In addition:" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcOh-rxK36Hz_xPQzPduMAdvtSA1AUAfb4avUkbmNtY0w79Taztjd10-tUt22PeOQWBRq1gJWPwg-zA_sLYzzlw_7PVHFmGlwFeijSheHFbXHWOntc at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SjY&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> Add: "shall" >>> >>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>> >>> Rejected suggestion >>> >>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRc9L1FDN9D6Bk54nkDn0RHPqdkV0GE1qLX12R0WjAKP_Wixsk7nM77Esn-HHZDky3CQ12r1YfbOCzSvUcW3KQmpPtjjYSoEEOs6rGp-FZeiFo46GOA at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SjU&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>> >>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 08:58:41 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:58:41 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: EDPD Leadership Comments Table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, I don't know which edits not reinstated but when checking the google doc (EDPD Leadership Comments Table based on what you forwared) right now I can see edits you made. unless you mean another document? Best, Rafik Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 14:41, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > No, I think they were not reinstated. > > It really defeats the point of using Google Doc if we cannot change the > text ourselves and need to instead discuss changes in the "comments / > suggestions section." > > Even typos were rejected; ie "fact" could not be replaced with "face." I > guess I will first have to justify correcting this obvious typo. > > I don?t see how this is easier for anyone. I haven?t reviewed all of the > documents to see if others edits were rejected, too ? but I do think we > should be marking up the text instead, as it is this easier for everyone to > know what proposal is on the table. > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 03:54, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > I think the edits were reinstated. Marika sent communication a few hours > ago: > > "As a reminder, please do not redline the current text in the charter > which appears in the first section of the document, but instead, please > provide your comments / proposed edits as part of the comments / > suggestions section." > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 09:19, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> All of my edits were rejected. Good luck to everyone else who spends >> their afternoon reviewing the 8 different Google Docs. I hope some of you >> edits are accepted... >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Marika Konings (Google Docs) < >> d+MTEwMTI0MDYyNTI4MDYxMzUzOTA3-MTEyMDY2MDg3OTg4NTE1NjM0MDc2 at docs.google.com> >> >> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 at 00:02 >> Subject: EDPD Leadership Comments Table >> To: >> >> >> Marika Konings resolved suggestions in EDPD Leadership Comments Table >> >> *Resolved* >> 24 rejected suggestions >> Resolved >> Suggestions >> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Add: "as and" >> >> [image: Marika Konings] >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Rejected suggestion* >> Reply >> >> Open >> >> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "versus. participating as an EPDP Team member" with ", and not >> to make personal interventions" >> >> [image: Marika Konings] >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Rejected suggestion* >> Reply >> >> Open >> >> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "her" with "the EPDP in their official" >> >> [image: Marika Konings] >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Rejected suggestion* >> Reply >> >> Open >> >> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "Will make clear when he/she is acting" with "Only participate" >> >> [image: Marika Konings] >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Rejected suggestion* >> Reply >> >> Open >> >> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "in" with "on calls in their official" >> >> [image: Marika Konings] >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Rejected suggestion* >> Reply >> >> Open >> >> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Delete: "ing" >> >> [image: Marika Konings] >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Rejected suggestion* >> Reply >> >> Open >> >> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "make it explicitly clear when he/she is" with "channel such >> comments through the representatives of his or her Stakeholder Group, and >> to only" >> >> [image: Marika Konings] >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Rejected suggestion* >> Reply >> >> Open >> >> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "," with ";" >> >> [image: Marika Konings] >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Rejected suggestion* >> Reply >> >> Open >> >> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "/" with "or" >> >> [image: Marika Konings] >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Rejected suggestion* >> Reply >> >> Open >> >> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Replace: "/" with "or" >> >> [image: Marika Konings] >> *Marika Konings* >> >> *Rejected suggestion* >> Reply >> >> Open >> >> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >> *Ayden F?rdeline* >> >> Delete: "wish" >> >> [image: Marika Konings] >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 11:22:14 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 17:22:14 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for volunteers and statement of participation In-Reply-To: <9FA82B13-E373-4BE3-B733-5652E9B9AA72@icann.org> References: <9FA82B13-E373-4BE3-B733-5652E9B9AA72@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi all, I will use this to start drafting the NCSG call for volunteers for EPDP team in meantime and propose a process. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Marika Konings Date: ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 17:17 Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for volunteers and statement of participation To: epdp-dt at icann.org Dear All, You?ll find hereby for your review the draft call for volunteers which includes the proposed EPDP Statement of Participation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WB8zOEiv1Vuqe2_JCEhsuWXRT49EGJGz7jqAI-zExNA/edit?usp=sharing. Please use the comment function to include any suggestions / edits you may have instead of redlining, including your name if you are not logged into Google. Note that this document may require further updating pending the outcome of the discussion on composition. Best regards, Marika *Marika Konings* *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages . * _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 6 13:56:11 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 06:56:11 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for volunteers and statement of participation In-Reply-To: References: <9FA82B13-E373-4BE3-B733-5652E9B9AA72@icann.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Rafik, that seems a good plan. I have suggested some edits now to the Council's call, and in particular, the 'Statement of Participation'. I think it was Stephanie who cautioned on a recent call that this could be an instrument used to strangle some of our members, so I have proposed some revisions that make it clear we can not be compelled to reach an unlawful compromise position... Also, it appears the deadline we have to communicate to ICANN our names is 23 July. That's tight; that gives us just two weeks to call for applications and appoint members... Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 6 July 2018 10:22 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > I will use this to start drafting the NCSG call for volunteers for EPDP team in meantime and propose a process. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Marika Konings > Date: ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 17:17 > Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for volunteers and statement of participation > To: epdp-dt at icann.org > > Dear All, > > You?ll find hereby for your review the draft call for volunteers which includes the proposed EPDP Statement of Participation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WB8zOEiv1Vuqe2_JCEhsuWXRT49EGJGz7jqAI-zExNA/edit?usp=sharing. Please use the comment function to include any suggestions / edits you may have instead of redlining, including your name if you are not logged into Google. Note that this document may require further updating pending the outcome of the discussion on composition. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > Marika Konings > > Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: marika.konings at icann.org > > Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 6 13:58:26 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 06:58:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: EDPD Leadership Comments Table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm going through the document now and painfully re-inserting them, this time how they want - as individual comments rather than as 'suggestion' mode edits. How this makes things easier for anyone I do not know. I'll be inserting around 500 comment boxes, for every comma I want inserted, every typo corrected, every word I'd like changed... but I think this is important, there's language in here around polls and when polls can be used that we need changed. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 6 July 2018 7:58 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > I don't know which edits not reinstated but when checking the google doc (EDPD Leadership Comments Table based on what you forwared) right now I can see edits you made. unless you mean another document? > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 14:41, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> No, I think they were not reinstated. >> >> It really defeats the point of using Google Doc if we cannot change the text ourselves and need to instead discuss changes in the "comments / suggestions section." >> >> Even typos were rejected; ie "fact" could not be replaced with "face." I guess I will first have to justify correcting this obvious typo. >> >> I don?t see how this is easier for anyone. I haven?t reviewed all of the documents to see if others edits were rejected, too ? but I do think we should be marking up the text instead, as it is this easier for everyone to know what proposal is on the table. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 03:54, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think the edits were reinstated. Marika sent communication a few hours ago: >>> >>> "As a reminder, please do not redline the current text in the charter which appears in the first section of the document, but instead, please provide your comments / proposed edits as part of the comments / suggestions section." >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 09:19, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> >>>> All of my edits were rejected. Good luck to everyone else who spends their afternoon reviewing the 8 different Google Docs. I hope some of you edits are accepted... >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: Marika Konings (Google Docs) <[d+MTEwMTI0MDYyNTI4MDYxMzUzOTA3-MTEyMDY2MDg3OTg4NTE1NjM0MDc2 at docs.google.com](mailto:d%2BMTEwMTI0MDYyNTI4MDYxMzUzOTA3-MTEyMDY2MDg3OTg4NTE1NjM0MDc2 at docs.google.com)> >>>>> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 at 00:02 >>>>> Subject: EDPD Leadership Comments Table >>>>> To: >>>>> >>>>> Marika Konings resolved suggestions in [EDPD Leadership Comments Table](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkM&ts=5b3e955f&usp=comment_email_document) >>>>> >>>>> Resolved >>>>> >>>>> 24 rejected suggestions >>>>> >>>>> Resolved >>>>> >>>>> Suggestions >>>>> >>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> Add: "as and" >>>>> >>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>> >>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>> >>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdXYXig_LvoskS-eBAVneoHTeLxPvHJPSP55DaxF37Na774RnMwVSeXxoKr_LRYzOthC-cphLDgiyPpwKbsMg0DcFykP62JGgTt5OIuuumY3uveUu4 at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkM&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>> >>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> Replace: "versus. participating as an EPDP Team member" with ", and not to make personal interventions" >>>>> >>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>> >>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>> >>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpReN0nGb6rPmqGoJmhr6A019xuRbQsZP5tmJVHqGSg-A4HoCnipfPwwxbB6dTadkPzCT5fpEkRXNkqROvLV34906wyM0Yz9GCVECpn8myqTS3suoeqg at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkI&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>> >>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> Replace: "her" with "the EPDP in their official" >>>>> >>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>> >>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>> >>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcocxvV6fJMlU34sYNiXR3tjhbkV547x6mgPvUQxBFhV8gwOQJFMlMTgpR0mz2CmPvvc064Yo6GsIrjrQN1BRimwbS64VGe-Z4Ao_jO-QSQ3Wv88VM at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkE&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>> >>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> Replace: "Will make clear when he/she is acting" with "Only participate" >>>>> >>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>> >>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>> >>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcz8Ho21DqHezbWyCk22b7jPW_xdmcw3oXWUrttIIV_supO65J3lmc8qCGsdIhOBbrTosqpTaAATPciNG_qeLdQFw45pOqDduslo9UW0qMkLQ7jgPQ at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkA&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>> >>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> Replace: "in" with "on calls in their official" >>>>> >>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>> >>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>> >>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdDiYY7WbBShhMG6P6-xMh8dbtEpOnaja2fW94P2po3XzWFwy3cuBoGRLGmjC70CxTVwD8FPRmz7ztXijhc1gJftgMpFvflLUotugR9HBLjvfnnfsY at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sj4&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>> >>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> Delete: "ing" >>>>> >>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>> >>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>> >>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRfTznDurVJ-EdwUPgYXbhKOTfRMwc3xWh-RxfjbNCl8xkdgW92dgO_WKPrFRS_dmAD8tKP_hPiv2OIsMRniQOiuQ5raWHZwz-jQ3AwWE1mvwUF2BVw at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sj0&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>> >>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> Replace: "make it explicitly clear when he/she is" with "channel such comments through the representatives of his or her Stakeholder Group, and to only" >>>>> >>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>> >>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>> >>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRd219ABodPg_BH4cT5ZM2sny8sshk3d4KPI8np1ZjTeLhXLrz5quwjVscl7tQsnS1KcWHUGPY1_eCR1fsNTg_oNxYJ58bcNYhsY1JJZnkeRzAbfu78 at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjw&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>> >>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> Replace: "," with ";" >>>>> >>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>> >>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>> >>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcFN2ClhUO6T4rIqp8NORym59WLlF6OLCrcDDC4scoykyFK9c1lhuU6begRodUzBU_k-T7zuA76E9f_yuJcMbIUf4YBHOsC7bJWl8EYTEcigpzuvGA at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjs&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>> >>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> Replace: "/" with "or" >>>>> >>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>> >>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>> >>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRd2opzZZhJbu-Vmq58AFc5kSzZglNGMdlpd-EfUNYnTGJG1tCBLgngQ4ig43ifIQEqvy13olOc7vHAlVCzEAKpxus7VMi9SF61V17LQOnDMX4YJ5Z8 at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjo&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>> >>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> Replace: "/" with "or" >>>>> >>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>> >>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>> >>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdbfZv_oRb_o0GRnR2pdKREeAgGA_RueKlBjx9GlaSIuZ8fumyGRpsUam42uyrzDNWkvwF7VwcqJt1ve7ScFca_9JdGFYI6Dus80AkjP_2yD14OfUA at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjk&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>> >>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> Delete: "wish" >>>>> >>>>> [Marika Konings] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 15:11:33 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 21:11:33 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: EDPD Leadership Comments Table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Ayden, with regard to the polling, I think the language comes from the WG Guidelines under section 3.6 https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf same for the rest of that part of the charter as indicated there. I understand that concerns from the experience of regular polling in RDS which is unusual. no idea why the leadership there decided to go in that path. anyway, the poll as described is not encouraged as a way to define consensus as it may be perceived as voting. I guess one way than trying to amend directly would be defining "rare cases" separately from the standard language in WG guidelines to list the strict conditions to trigger such a mechanism. just rewording what was suggested there. Best, Rafik Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > I'm going through the document now and painfully re-inserting them, this > time how they want - as individual comments rather than as 'suggestion' > mode edits. How this makes things easier for anyone I do not know. I'll be > inserting around 500 comment boxes, for every comma I want inserted, every > typo corrected, every word I'd like changed... but I think this is > important, there's language in here around polls and when polls can be used > that we need changed. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 6 July 2018 7:58 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > I don't know which edits not reinstated but when checking the google doc > (EDPD Leadership Comments Table based on what you forwared) right now I can > see edits you made. unless you mean another document? > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 14:41, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> No, I think they were not reinstated. >> >> It really defeats the point of using Google Doc if we cannot change the >> text ourselves and need to instead discuss changes in the "comments / >> suggestions section." >> >> Even typos were rejected; ie "fact" could not be replaced with "face." I >> guess I will first have to justify correcting this obvious typo. >> >> I don?t see how this is easier for anyone. I haven?t reviewed all of the >> documents to see if others edits were rejected, too ? but I do think we >> should be marking up the text instead, as it is this easier for everyone to >> know what proposal is on the table. >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 03:54, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I think the edits were reinstated. Marika sent communication a few hours >> ago: >> >> "As a reminder, please do not redline the current text in the charter >> which appears in the first section of the document, but instead, please >> provide your comments / proposed edits as part of the comments / >> suggestions section." >> >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 09:19, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> All of my edits were rejected. Good luck to everyone else who spends >>> their afternoon reviewing the 8 different Google Docs. I hope some of you >>> edits are accepted... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Marika Konings (Google Docs) < >>> d+MTEwMTI0MDYyNTI4MDYxMzUzOTA3-MTEyMDY2MDg3OTg4NTE1NjM0MDc2 at docs.google.com> >>> >>> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 at 00:02 >>> Subject: EDPD Leadership Comments Table >>> To: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Marika Konings resolved suggestions in EDPD Leadership Comments Table >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Resolved* >>> >>> 24 rejected suggestions >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Resolved >>> >>> Suggestions >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>> >>> >>> *Add:* *"as and"* >>> >>> >>> [image: Marika Konings] >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Rejected suggestion* >>> Reply >>> >>> Open >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>> >>> >>> *Replace:* *"versus. participating as an EPDP Team member"* with *", >>> and not to make personal interventions"* >>> >>> >>> [image: Marika Konings] >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Rejected suggestion* >>> Reply >>> >>> Open >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>> >>> >>> *Replace:* *"her"* with *"the EPDP in their official"* >>> >>> >>> [image: Marika Konings] >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Rejected suggestion* >>> Reply >>> >>> Open >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>> >>> >>> *Replace:* *"Will make clear when he/she is acting"* with *"Only >>> participate"* >>> >>> >>> [image: Marika Konings] >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Rejected suggestion* >>> Reply >>> >>> Open >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>> >>> >>> *Replace:* *"in"* with *"on calls in their official"* >>> >>> >>> [image: Marika Konings] >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Rejected suggestion* >>> Reply >>> >>> Open >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>> >>> >>> *Delete:* *"ing"* >>> >>> >>> [image: Marika Konings] >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Rejected suggestion* >>> Reply >>> >>> Open >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>> >>> >>> *Replace:* *"make it explicitly clear when he/she is"* with *"channel >>> such comments through the representatives of his or her Stakeholder Group, >>> and to only"* >>> >>> >>> [image: Marika Konings] >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Rejected suggestion* >>> Reply >>> >>> Open >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>> >>> >>> *Replace:* *","* with *";"* >>> >>> >>> [image: Marika Konings] >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Rejected suggestion* >>> Reply >>> >>> Open >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>> >>> >>> *Replace:* *"/"* with *"or"* >>> >>> >>> [image: Marika Konings] >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Rejected suggestion* >>> Reply >>> >>> Open >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>> >>> >>> *Replace:* *"/"* with *"or"* >>> >>> >>> [image: Marika Konings] >>> *Marika Konings* >>> >>> *Rejected suggestion* >>> Reply >>> >>> Open >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>> >>> >>> *Delete:* *"wish"* >>> >>> >>> [image: Marika Konings] >>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 6 15:16:31 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 08:16:31 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: EDPD Leadership Comments Table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ah, thanks Rafik. Can I please clarify - if language is extracted directly from the GNSO's WG Guidelines, can we change that text in our Charter for the limited purpose of this EPDP? Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 6 July 2018 2:11 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Thanks Ayden, > with regard to the polling, I think the language comes from the WG Guidelines under section 3.6 https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf same for the rest of that part of the charter as indicated there. > I understand that concerns from the experience of regular polling in RDS which is unusual. no idea why the leadership there decided to go in that path. anyway, the poll as described is not encouraged as a way to define consensus as it may be perceived as voting. > I guess one way than trying to amend directly would be defining "rare cases" separately from the standard language in WG guidelines to list the strict conditions to trigger such a mechanism. just rewording what was suggested there. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> I'm going through the document now and painfully re-inserting them, this time how they want - as individual comments rather than as 'suggestion' mode edits. How this makes things easier for anyone I do not know. I'll be inserting around 500 comment boxes, for every comma I want inserted, every typo corrected, every word I'd like changed... but I think this is important, there's language in here around polls and when polls can be used that we need changed. >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 6 July 2018 7:58 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> I don't know which edits not reinstated but when checking the google doc (EDPD Leadership Comments Table based on what you forwared) right now I can see edits you made. unless you mean another document? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 14:41, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>> >>>> No, I think they were not reinstated. >>>> >>>> It really defeats the point of using Google Doc if we cannot change the text ourselves and need to instead discuss changes in the "comments / suggestions section." >>>> >>>> Even typos were rejected; ie "fact" could not be replaced with "face." I guess I will first have to justify correcting this obvious typo. >>>> >>>> I don?t see how this is easier for anyone. I haven?t reviewed all of the documents to see if others edits were rejected, too ? but I do think we should be marking up the text instead, as it is this easier for everyone to know what proposal is on the table. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 03:54, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I think the edits were reinstated. Marika sent communication a few hours ago: >>>>> >>>>> "As a reminder, please do not redline the current text in the charter which appears in the first section of the document, but instead, please provide your comments / proposed edits as part of the comments / suggestions section." >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 09:19, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> All of my edits were rejected. Good luck to everyone else who spends their afternoon reviewing the 8 different Google Docs. I hope some of you edits are accepted... >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>> From: Marika Konings (Google Docs) <[d+MTEwMTI0MDYyNTI4MDYxMzUzOTA3-MTEyMDY2MDg3OTg4NTE1NjM0MDc2 at docs.google.com](mailto:d%2BMTEwMTI0MDYyNTI4MDYxMzUzOTA3-MTEyMDY2MDg3OTg4NTE1NjM0MDc2 at docs.google.com)> >>>>>>> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 at 00:02 >>>>>>> Subject: EDPD Leadership Comments Table >>>>>>> To: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marika Konings resolved suggestions in [EDPD Leadership Comments Table](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkM&ts=5b3e955f&usp=comment_email_document) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resolved >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 24 rejected suggestions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resolved >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Suggestions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Add: "as and" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdXYXig_LvoskS-eBAVneoHTeLxPvHJPSP55DaxF37Na774RnMwVSeXxoKr_LRYzOthC-cphLDgiyPpwKbsMg0DcFykP62JGgTt5OIuuumY3uveUu4 at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkM&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Replace: "versus. participating as an EPDP Team member" with ", and not to make personal interventions" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpReN0nGb6rPmqGoJmhr6A019xuRbQsZP5tmJVHqGSg-A4HoCnipfPwwxbB6dTadkPzCT5fpEkRXNkqROvLV34906wyM0Yz9GCVECpn8myqTS3suoeqg at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkI&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Replace: "her" with "the EPDP in their official" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcocxvV6fJMlU34sYNiXR3tjhbkV547x6mgPvUQxBFhV8gwOQJFMlMTgpR0mz2CmPvvc064Yo6GsIrjrQN1BRimwbS64VGe-Z4Ao_jO-QSQ3Wv88VM at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkE&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Replace: "Will make clear when he/she is acting" with "Only participate" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcz8Ho21DqHezbWyCk22b7jPW_xdmcw3oXWUrttIIV_supO65J3lmc8qCGsdIhOBbrTosqpTaAATPciNG_qeLdQFw45pOqDduslo9UW0qMkLQ7jgPQ at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0SkA&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Replace: "in" with "on calls in their official" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdDiYY7WbBShhMG6P6-xMh8dbtEpOnaja2fW94P2po3XzWFwy3cuBoGRLGmjC70CxTVwD8FPRmz7ztXijhc1gJftgMpFvflLUotugR9HBLjvfnnfsY at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sj4&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Delete: "ing" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRfTznDurVJ-EdwUPgYXbhKOTfRMwc3xWh-RxfjbNCl8xkdgW92dgO_WKPrFRS_dmAD8tKP_hPiv2OIsMRniQOiuQ5raWHZwz-jQ3AwWE1mvwUF2BVw at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sj0&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Replace: "make it explicitly clear when he/she is" with "channel such comments through the representatives of his or her Stakeholder Group, and to only" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRd219ABodPg_BH4cT5ZM2sny8sshk3d4KPI8np1ZjTeLhXLrz5quwjVscl7tQsnS1KcWHUGPY1_eCR1fsNTg_oNxYJ58bcNYhsY1JJZnkeRzAbfu78 at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjw&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Replace: "," with ";" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRcFN2ClhUO6T4rIqp8NORym59WLlF6OLCrcDDC4scoykyFK9c1lhuU6begRodUzBU_k-T7zuA76E9f_yuJcMbIUf4YBHOsC7bJWl8EYTEcigpzuvGA at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjs&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Replace: "/" with "or" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRd2opzZZhJbu-Vmq58AFc5kSzZglNGMdlpd-EfUNYnTGJG1tCBLgngQ4ig43ifIQEqvy13olOc7vHAlVCzEAKpxus7VMi9SF61V17LQOnDMX4YJ5Z8 at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjo&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Replace: "/" with "or" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Marika Konings] Marika Konings >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rejected suggestion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Reply](mailTo:Reply%20%3Cd+AORGpRdbfZv_oRb_o0GRnR2pdKREeAgGA_RueKlBjx9GlaSIuZ8fumyGRpsUam42uyrzDNWkvwF7VwcqJt1ve7ScFca_9JdGFYI6Dus80AkjP_2yD14OfUA at docs.google.com%3E?subject=EDPD%20Leadership%20Comments%20Table)[Open](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dp8PEa4Y2_ezAMc-HKR0nMchcFvDGkPbs5XLBsittHk/edit?disco=AAAACA-0Sjk&usp=suggestion_email_discussion&ts=5b3e955f) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Ayden F?rdeline] Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Delete: "wish" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Marika Konings] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 15:18:17 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 21:18:17 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for volunteers and statement of participation In-Reply-To: References: <9FA82B13-E373-4BE3-B733-5652E9B9AA72@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, indeed, we got a short time window for this process and it is not optimal. But I am assuming that the prospective candidates should be aware of EPDP from NCSG calls, updates on the mailing list and/or also Panama meeting. While we can kick-off the call asap, we can continue the work on process and maybe a matrix or whatever to evaluate the candidates. I guess for the Statement of Participation we didn't go that far and asked people to take an oath :) doing a cursory reading at your edits, they look ok. Best, Rafik Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 19:56, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Thanks, Rafik, that seems a good plan. > > I have suggested some edits now to the Council's call, and in particular, > the 'Statement of Participation'. I think it was Stephanie who cautioned on > a recent call that this could be an instrument used to strangle some of our > members, so I have proposed some revisions that make it clear we can not be > compelled to reach an unlawful compromise position... > > Also, it appears the deadline we have to communicate to ICANN our names is > 23 July. That's tight; that gives us just two weeks to call for > applications and appoint members... > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 6 July 2018 10:22 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > I will use this to start drafting the NCSG call for volunteers for EPDP > team in meantime and propose a process. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Marika Konings* > Date: ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 17:17 > Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for volunteers and statement of > participation > To: epdp-dt at icann.org > > > Dear All, > > > > You?ll find hereby for your review the draft call for volunteers which > includes the proposed EPDP Statement of Participation: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WB8zOEiv1Vuqe2_JCEhsuWXRT49EGJGz7jqAI-zExNA/edit?usp=sharing. > Please use the comment function to include any suggestions / edits you may > have instead of redlining, including your name if you are not logged into > Google. Note that this document may require further updating pending the > outcome of the discussion on composition. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > *Marika Konings* > > *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation > for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * > > *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * > > > > *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* > > *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > . * > > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 15:22:42 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 21:22:42 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: EDPD Leadership Comments Table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi Ayden, I think it is possible to amend based on this note: "*{Note: The following material was extracted from the Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6. If a Chartering Organization wishes to deviate from the standard methodology for making decisions or empower the Team to decide its own decision-making methodology, this section should be amended as appropriate}. *" that is why I suggested to add separately and keep the standard language instead of amending directly. just a suggestion, I guess that may work both ways. I was thinking if the concern is about polling, we can add elaborate more about conditions and restrictions as you did but as a separate paragraph. just suggestion from me and I can live with the current edits (just I don't want other groups to start tinkering with things like level of consensus and so on). Best, Rafik Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 21:16, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Ah, thanks Rafik. Can I please clarify - if language is extracted directly > from the GNSO's WG Guidelines, can we change that text in our Charter for > the limited purpose of this EPDP? > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 6 July 2018 2:11 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Thanks Ayden, > with regard to the polling, I think the language comes from the WG > Guidelines under section 3.6 > https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf > same for the rest of that part of the charter as indicated there. > I understand that concerns from the experience of regular polling in RDS > which is unusual. no idea why the leadership there decided to go in that > path. anyway, the poll as described is not encouraged as a way to define > consensus as it may be perceived as voting. > I guess one way than trying to amend directly would be defining "rare > cases" separately from the standard language in WG guidelines to list the > strict conditions to trigger such a mechanism. just rewording what was > suggested there. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> I'm going through the document now and painfully re-inserting them, this >> time how they want - as individual comments rather than as 'suggestion' >> mode edits. How this makes things easier for anyone I do not know. I'll be >> inserting around 500 comment boxes, for every comma I want inserted, every >> typo corrected, every word I'd like changed... but I think this is >> important, there's language in here around polls and when polls can be used >> that we need changed. >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 6 July 2018 7:58 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden, >> >> I don't know which edits not reinstated but when checking the google doc >> (EDPD Leadership Comments Table based on what you forwared) right now I can >> see edits you made. unless you mean another document? >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 14:41, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> No, I think they were not reinstated. >>> >>> It really defeats the point of using Google Doc if we cannot change the >>> text ourselves and need to instead discuss changes in the "comments / >>> suggestions section." >>> >>> Even typos were rejected; ie "fact" could not be replaced with "face." I >>> guess I will first have to justify correcting this obvious typo. >>> >>> I don?t see how this is easier for anyone. I haven?t reviewed all of the >>> documents to see if others edits were rejected, too ? but I do think we >>> should be marking up the text instead, as it is this easier for everyone to >>> know what proposal is on the table. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 03:54, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think the edits were reinstated. Marika sent communication a few hours >>> ago: >>> >>> "As a reminder, please do not redline the current text in the charter >>> which appears in the first section of the document, but instead, please >>> provide your comments / proposed edits as part of the comments / >>> suggestions section." >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 09:19, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> All of my edits were rejected. Good luck to everyone else who spends >>>> their afternoon reviewing the 8 different Google Docs. I hope some of you >>>> edits are accepted... >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>> From: Marika Konings (Google Docs) < >>>> d+MTEwMTI0MDYyNTI4MDYxMzUzOTA3-MTEyMDY2MDg3OTg4NTE1NjM0MDc2 at docs.google.com> >>>> >>>> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 at 00:02 >>>> Subject: EDPD Leadership Comments Table >>>> To: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Marika Konings resolved suggestions in EDPD Leadership Comments Table >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Resolved* >>>> >>>> 24 rejected suggestions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Resolved >>>> >>>> Suggestions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>> >>>> >>>> *Add:* *"as and"* >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Marika Konings] >>>> *Marika Konings* >>>> >>>> *Rejected suggestion* >>>> Reply >>>> >>>> Open >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>> >>>> >>>> *Replace:* *"versus. participating as an EPDP Team member"* with *", >>>> and not to make personal interventions"* >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Marika Konings] >>>> *Marika Konings* >>>> >>>> *Rejected suggestion* >>>> Reply >>>> >>>> Open >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>> >>>> >>>> *Replace:* *"her"* with *"the EPDP in their official"* >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Marika Konings] >>>> *Marika Konings* >>>> >>>> *Rejected suggestion* >>>> Reply >>>> >>>> Open >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>> >>>> >>>> *Replace:* *"Will make clear when he/she is acting"* with *"Only >>>> participate"* >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Marika Konings] >>>> *Marika Konings* >>>> >>>> *Rejected suggestion* >>>> Reply >>>> >>>> Open >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>> >>>> >>>> *Replace:* *"in"* with *"on calls in their official"* >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Marika Konings] >>>> *Marika Konings* >>>> >>>> *Rejected suggestion* >>>> Reply >>>> >>>> Open >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>> >>>> >>>> *Delete:* *"ing"* >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Marika Konings] >>>> *Marika Konings* >>>> >>>> *Rejected suggestion* >>>> Reply >>>> >>>> Open >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>> >>>> >>>> *Replace:* *"make it explicitly clear when he/she is"* with *"channel >>>> such comments through the representatives of his or her Stakeholder Group, >>>> and to only"* >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Marika Konings] >>>> *Marika Konings* >>>> >>>> *Rejected suggestion* >>>> Reply >>>> >>>> Open >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>> >>>> >>>> *Replace:* *","* with *";"* >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Marika Konings] >>>> *Marika Konings* >>>> >>>> *Rejected suggestion* >>>> Reply >>>> >>>> Open >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>> >>>> >>>> *Replace:* *"/"* with *"or"* >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Marika Konings] >>>> *Marika Konings* >>>> >>>> *Rejected suggestion* >>>> Reply >>>> >>>> Open >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>> >>>> >>>> *Replace:* *"/"* with *"or"* >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Marika Konings] >>>> *Marika Konings* >>>> >>>> *Rejected suggestion* >>>> Reply >>>> >>>> Open >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Ayden F?rdeline] >>>> *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>> >>>> >>>> *Delete:* *"wish"* >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Marika Konings] >>>> >>>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 6 15:24:31 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 08:24:31 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for volunteers and statement of participation In-Reply-To: References: <9FA82B13-E373-4BE3-B733-5652E9B9AA72@icann.org> Message-ID: Thanks Rafik; I agree, it is definitely manageable and we'll be able to get our volunteers in order in time. I do think it would be helpful for prospective candidates if we can get a bit more information on how long the face-to-face meetings will be, and its estimated dates - the first F2F could be two weeks long, which is a big commitment. I appreciate the comment from staff yesterday on why the location cannot be determined yet, but rough dates seem possible to determine based upon the proposed work plan. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 6 July 2018 2:18 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > indeed, we got a short time window for this process and it is not optimal. But I am assuming that the prospective candidates should be aware of EPDP from NCSG calls, updates on the mailing list and/or also Panama meeting. While we can kick-off the call asap, we can continue the work on process and maybe a matrix or whatever to evaluate the candidates. > I guess for the Statement of Participation we didn't go that far and asked people to take an oath :) doing a cursory reading at your edits, they look ok. > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 19:56, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Thanks, Rafik, that seems a good plan. >> >> I have suggested some edits now to the Council's call, and in particular, the 'Statement of Participation'. I think it was Stephanie who cautioned on a recent call that this could be an instrument used to strangle some of our members, so I have proposed some revisions that make it clear we can not be compelled to reach an unlawful compromise position... >> >> Also, it appears the deadline we have to communicate to ICANN our names is 23 July. That's tight; that gives us just two weeks to call for applications and appoint members... >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 6 July 2018 10:22 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I will use this to start drafting the NCSG call for volunteers for EPDP team in meantime and propose a process. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Marika Konings >>> Date: ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 17:17 >>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for volunteers and statement of participation >>> To: epdp-dt at icann.org >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> You?ll find hereby for your review the draft call for volunteers which includes the proposed EPDP Statement of Participation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WB8zOEiv1Vuqe2_JCEhsuWXRT49EGJGz7jqAI-zExNA/edit?usp=sharing. Please use the comment function to include any suggestions / edits you may have instead of redlining, including your name if you are not logged into Google. Note that this document may require further updating pending the outcome of the discussion on composition. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> Marika Konings >>> >>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>> >>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >>> >>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers). >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jul 8 01:13:31 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 07:13:31 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] For your review - proposed EPDP Team Composition language In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, here the latest proposal from the small team regarding composition. Thanks, Stephanie for the work there. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Marika Konings Date: dim. 8 juil. 2018 ? 04:51 Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - proposed EPDP Team Composition language To: Epdp-dt at icann.org Dear All, On behalf of the small team (Keith, Susan, Stephanie, Paul and Donna ? on behalf of Council leadership), please find attached the proposed text for the EPDP charter in relation to EPDP Team Composition. The small team met on Friday and further considered the input and proposals discussed during the DT meeting earlier this week. As a result, in summary, the small team is recommending that: - GNSO Members are appointed by GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SG). - Each Contracted Party House Stakeholder Group (Registries SG and Registrars SG) may appoint up to 3 Members + 3 Alternates, - Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency). - The ALAC, SSAC and ccNSO will be invited to appoint 2 members + 2 Alternates - The GAC will be invited to appoint 3 members + 3 Alternates - In addition, descriptions have been added to this section to clarify the differences between the roles of members, alternates, observers, Board liaisons, GNSO Council Liaison and Staff Liaisons. If there are any fundamental concerns about these recommendations or any other parts of the proposed text, please share those with the DT list as soon as possible. Note that the call for volunteers will need to be updated in accordance with these recommendations, if no objections are raised. Best regards, Marika *Marika Konings* *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages . * _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EPDP Team Composition - Proposed Charter Text - updated 7 July 2018.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23557 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dave at davecake.net Sun Jul 8 06:38:14 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 11:38:14 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] For your review - proposed EPDP Team Composition language In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6991F81A-78AF-4D60-8720-C666AC627EA3@davecake.net> Thank you Stephanie for what I am sure must have been hard work ensuring equitable representation. David > On 8 Jul 2018, at 6:13 am, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > here the latest proposal from the small team regarding composition. > Thanks, Stephanie for the work there. > > Best, > > Rafik > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Marika Konings > > Date: dim. 8 juil. 2018 ? 04:51 > Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - proposed EPDP Team Composition language > To: Epdp-dt at icann.org > > > > Dear All, > > > > On behalf of the small team (Keith, Susan, Stephanie, Paul and Donna ? on behalf of Council leadership), please find attached the proposed text for the EPDP charter in relation to EPDP Team Composition. The small team met on Friday and further considered the input and proposals discussed during the DT meeting earlier this week. As a result, in summary, the small team is recommending that: > > > > GNSO Members are appointed by GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SG). > Each Contracted Party House Stakeholder Group (Registries SG and Registrars SG) may appoint up to 3 Members + 3 Alternates, > Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency). > The ALAC, SSAC and ccNSO will be invited to appoint 2 members + 2 Alternates > The GAC will be invited to appoint 3 members + 3 Alternates > In addition, descriptions have been added to this section to clarify the differences between the roles of members, alternates, observers, Board liaisons, GNSO Council Liaison and Staff Liaisons. > > > If there are any fundamental concerns about these recommendations or any other parts of the proposed text, please share those with the DT list as soon as possible. Note that the call for volunteers will need to be updated in accordance with these recommendations, if no objections are raised. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > Marika Konings > > Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: marika.konings at icann.org > > > > Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages . > > > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 06:21:08 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 23:21:08 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Specific Review timeline short term plan Message-ID: Hi everyone Here is my first stab at the public comment on the specific review short term timeline. We just need to streamline our principles. Transparency and accountability come before saving money. Here is the draft, please comment I will soon send it to the NCSG list. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit Best Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 06:23:25 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:23:25 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Specific Review timeline short term plan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, Thanks for the draft, @PC members, please review the draft, it will be shared later with NCSG membership for comments. Best, Rafik Le lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:21, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Hi everyone > > Here is my first stab at the public comment on the specific review short > term timeline. We just need to streamline our principles. Transparency and > accountability come before saving money. > > Here is the draft, please comment I will soon send it to the NCSG list. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit > > Best > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 06:27:19 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:27:19 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel Support Guidelines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. so please review and share your comments. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 06:32:09 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:32:09 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments needing volunteers Message-ID: Hi all, while I shared the call for volunteers for drafting comments for NCSG, there are 2 without volunteers yet and that is understandable because the topics and also having too many public consultations at the same time: 1. CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Recommendations - Time for Filing rule 2. Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs ? Policy Amendment Process anyone in NCSG PC wants to take the lead as penholder for one for of those comments? as usual, you can find the list of current public comments here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 06:40:00 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 23:40:00 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments needing volunteers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I volunteer for the jurisdiction public comment. If I get the time will write a comment on the outrageous report on Red Cross ... Farzaneh On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:32 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > while I shared the call for volunteers for drafting comments for NCSG, > there are 2 without volunteers yet and that is understandable because the > topics and also having too many public consultations at the same time: > > 1. CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Recommendations > - Time for Filing rule > > 2. Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in > all gTLDs ? Policy Amendment Process > > > anyone in NCSG PC wants to take the lead as penholder for one for of those > comments? > > as usual, you can find the list of current public comments here: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 > > Best, > > Rafik > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 07:23:26 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 00:23:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on Long Term options to adjust for Reviews timeline Message-ID: Here is another comment on long term options to adjust reviews timeline https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit We need to share with the mailing list soon. Deadline is 31 July. Best Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 07:25:58 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 13:25:58 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, one of the task we have for a while is to approve the process for nominating candidates for PIR Advisory Group and initiating the process itself to get candidates. few of us reviewed the current proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit and we need to approve it quickly. After the approval of the process and finalizing, I will try to draft the call for candidates. We should coordinate the call for candidates between PIR call and the Call for EPDP team, priority to the latter, but both need to be done in coming days. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 07:32:34 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 13:32:34 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP call for volunteers draft In-Reply-To: References: <9FA82B13-E373-4BE3-B733-5652E9B9AA72@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi all, please find here the draft for the call for volunteers to EPDP team and some suggestion for the matrix to conduct the selection (to be developed further) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit . We can get the call for volunteers approved and issued within this week (this Wednesday) while continuing to tweak the selection process itself. you can encourage candidates to apply but please be clear that doesn't mean any promise to be selected. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- Hi all, I will use this to start drafting the NCSG call for volunteers for EPDP team in meantime and propose a process. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Marika Konings Date: ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 17:17 Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for volunteers and statement of participation To: epdp-dt at icann.org Dear All, You?ll find hereby for your review the draft call for volunteers which includes the proposed EPDP Statement of Participation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WB8zOEiv1Vuqe2_JCEhsuWXRT49EGJGz7jqAI-zExNA/edit?usp=sharing. Please use the comment function to include any suggestions / edits you may have instead of redlining, including your name if you are not logged into Google. Note that this document may require further updating pending the outcome of the discussion on composition. Best regards, Marika *Marika Konings* *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages . * _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 07:33:55 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 13:33:55 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments needing volunteers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Farzaneh for volunteering. let me add your name to the table. Rafik Le lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:40, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > I volunteer for the jurisdiction public comment. > > If I get the time will write a comment on the outrageous report on Red > Cross ... > > Farzaneh > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:32 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> while I shared the call for volunteers for drafting comments for NCSG, >> there are 2 without volunteers yet and that is understandable because the >> topics and also having too many public consultations at the same time: >> >> 1. CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft >> Recommendations - Time for Filing rule >> >> 2. Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in >> all gTLDs ? Policy Amendment Process >> >> >> anyone in NCSG PC wants to take the lead as penholder for one for of >> those comments? >> >> as usual, you can find the list of current public comments here: >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Mon Jul 9 12:25:44 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 11:25:44 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments needing volunteers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21E0D4E6-9289-4474-8610-2875949883AD@benin2point0.org> Hello Rafik, Those two really fall outside my skills.. I will rather help on their review. But I will try to see what the Red Cross Names report is talking about. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 9 Jul 2018, at 05:32, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > while I shared the call for volunteers for drafting comments for NCSG, there are 2 without volunteers yet and that is understandable because the topics and also having too many public consultations at the same time: > CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Recommendations - Time for Filing rule > Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs ? Policy Amendment Process > anyone in NCSG PC wants to take the lead as penholder for one for of those comments? > > as usual, you can find the list of current public comments here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 > > Best, > > Rafik > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 13:10:42 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:10:42 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP call for volunteers draft In-Reply-To: References: <9FA82B13-E373-4BE3-B733-5652E9B9AA72@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, Thanks for drafting this. I went ahead and mostly reviewed the call for participants. I made few suggested edits (mostly typos, etc) and i think it looks great to me. However, I have a question with regards to the selection process. I understand that the PC will decide on the candidates which i don't have an issue with. I would like to know what we are doing with PC members who are willing to be considered/appointed as well. I think they should recuse themselves from the selection process and allow other PC members (who are not candidates) to carry deliberations. I will appreciate any discussion on this. Regards, Arsene 2018-07-09 6:32 UTC+02:00, Rafik Dammak : > Hi all, > > please find here the draft for the call for volunteers to EPDP team and > some suggestion for the matrix to conduct the selection (to be developed > further) > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit > . > > We can get the call for volunteers approved and issued within this week > (this Wednesday) while continuing to tweak the selection process itself. > you can encourage candidates to apply but please be clear that doesn't mean > any promise to be selected. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > > > Hi all, > > I will use this to start drafting the NCSG call for volunteers for EPDP > team in meantime and propose a process. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Marika Konings > Date: ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 17:17 > Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for volunteers and statement of > participation > To: epdp-dt at icann.org > > > Dear All, > > > > You?ll find hereby for your review the draft call for volunteers which > includes the proposed EPDP Statement of Participation: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WB8zOEiv1Vuqe2_JCEhsuWXRT49EGJGz7jqAI-zExNA/edit?usp=sharing. > Please use the comment function to include any suggestions / edits you may > have instead of redlining, including your name if you are not logged into > Google. Note that this document may require further updating pending the > outcome of the discussion on composition. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > *Marika Konings* > > *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation > for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * > > *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * > > > > *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* > > *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > . > * > > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) From jumaropi at yahoo.com Mon Jul 9 15:36:15 2018 From: jumaropi at yahoo.com (Juan Manuel Rojas) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:36:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments needing volunteers In-Reply-To: <21E0D4E6-9289-4474-8610-2875949883AD@benin2point0.org> References: <21E0D4E6-9289-4474-8610-2875949883AD@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: <808367535.1279018.1531139775462@mail.yahoo.com> I will do the same of Farrell. I'd like to have a chance in Red Cross comment as a volunteer.Best Regards, JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P. Presidente?-?AGEIA DENSI?ColombiaCommunications Committee Chair.?Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) - ICANNCluster Orinoco TIC memberMaster IT candidate, Universidad de los Andes Cel. +57 3017435600 Twitter:?@JmanuRojas ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? El lunes, 9 de julio de 2018 4:25:55 a. m. GMT-5, Farell FOLLY escribi?: Hello Rafik, Those two really fall outside my skills.. I will rather help on their review. But I will try to see what the Red Cross Names report is talking about. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter HeadAfrica 2.0 Foundation.www.africa2point0.orglinkedin.com/in/farellf On 9 Jul 2018, at 05:32, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi all, while I shared the call for volunteers for drafting comments for NCSG, there are 2 without volunteers yet and that is understandable because the topics and also having too many public consultations at the same time: - CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Recommendations - Time for Filing rule - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs ? Policy Amendment Process anyone in NCSG PC wants to take the lead as penholder for one for of those comments? as usual, you can find the list of current public comments here:?https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 Best, Rafik_______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 9 17:06:54 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 10:06:54 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] For your review - proposed EPDP Team Composition language In-Reply-To: <6991F81A-78AF-4D60-8720-C666AC627EA3@davecake.net> References: <6991F81A-78AF-4D60-8720-C666AC627EA3@davecake.net> Message-ID: Thanks David.? We have yet another meeting tomorrow .....early, I have a dentist appointment at 1 pm.? A root canal is looking preferable to joining the EPDP at this point....we have to find a way to get the BC to back off, or it will never end. Steph On 2018-07-07 23:38, David Cake wrote: > Thank you Stephanie for what I am sure must have been hard work > ensuring equitable representation. > > David > >> On 8 Jul 2018, at 6:13 am, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> here the latest proposal from the small team regarding composition. >> Thanks, Stephanie for the work there. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: *Marika Konings* > > >> Date: dim. 8 juil. 2018 ??04:51 >> Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - proposed EPDP Team Composition >> language >> To: Epdp-dt at icann.org > > >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> On behalf of the small team (Keith, Susan, Stephanie, Paul and Donna >> ? on behalf of Council leadership), please find attached the proposed >> text for the EPDP charter in relation to EPDP Team Composition. The >> small team met on Friday and further considered the input and >> proposals discussed during the DT meeting earlier this week. As a >> result, in summary, the small team is recommending that: >> >> * GNSO Members are appointed by GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SG). >> o Each Contracted Party House Stakeholder Group (Registries SG >> and Registrars SG) may appoint up to 3 Members + 3 Alternates, >> o Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial >> Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, >> may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial >> Stakeholder Group this is further broken down to 2 Members + >> 1 Alternate per Constituency). >> * The ALAC, SSAC and ccNSO will be invited to appoint 2 members + 2 >> Alternates >> * The GAC will be invited to appoint 3 members + 3 Alternates >> * In addition, descriptions have been added to this section to >> clarify the differences between the roles of members, alternates, >> observers, Board liaisons, GNSO Council Liaison and Staff Liaisons. >> >> If there are any fundamental concerns about these recommendations or >> any other parts of the proposed text, please share those with the DT >> list as soon as possible. Note that the call for volunteers will need >> to be updated in accordance with these recommendations, if no >> objections are raised. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> */Marika Konings/* >> >> /Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) / >> >> /Email: marika.konings at icann.org / >> >> // >> >> /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/ >> >> /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >> ?and visiting the GNSO Newcomer >> pages >> . >> / >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> > 2018.docx>_______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 17:12:02 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 10:12:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] For your review - proposed EPDP Team Composition language In-Reply-To: References: <6991F81A-78AF-4D60-8720-C666AC627EA3@davecake.net> Message-ID: Funny enough I have a dentist appointment tomorrow too. I am getting a crown though. Being crowned tomorrow :))) BC to back off? On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:07 AM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Thanks David. We have yet another meeting tomorrow .....early, I have a > dentist appointment at 1 pm. A root canal is looking preferable to joining > the EPDP at this point....we have to find a way to get the BC to back off, > or it will never end. > > Steph > On 2018-07-07 23:38, David Cake wrote: > > Thank you Stephanie for what I am sure must have been hard work ensuring > equitable representation. > > David > > On 8 Jul 2018, at 6:13 am, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > here the latest proposal from the small team regarding composition. > Thanks, Stephanie for the work there. > > Best, > > Rafik > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Marika Konings > Date: dim. 8 juil. 2018 ? 04:51 > Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - proposed EPDP Team Composition > language > To: Epdp-dt at icann.org > > > Dear All, > > > > On behalf of the small team (Keith, Susan, Stephanie, Paul and Donna ? on > behalf of Council leadership), please find attached the proposed text for > the EPDP charter in relation to EPDP Team Composition. The small team met > on Friday and further considered the input and proposals discussed during > the DT meeting earlier this week. As a result, in summary, the small team > is recommending that: > > > > - GNSO Members are appointed by GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SG). > - Each Contracted Party House Stakeholder Group (Registries SG and > Registrars SG) may appoint up to 3 Members + 3 Alternates, > - Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial > Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 > Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is > further broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency). > - The ALAC, SSAC and ccNSO will be invited to appoint 2 members + 2 > Alternates > - The GAC will be invited to appoint 3 members + 3 Alternates > - In addition, descriptions have been added to this section to clarify > the differences between the roles of members, alternates, observers, Board > liaisons, GNSO Council Liaison and Staff Liaisons. > > > > If there are any fundamental concerns about these recommendations or any > other parts of the proposed text, please share those with the DT list as > soon as possible. Note that the call for volunteers will need to be updated > in accordance with these recommendations, if no objections are raised. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > *Marika Konings* > > *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation > for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * > > *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * > > > > *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* > > *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > . * > > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 9 17:20:26 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 10:20:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments needing volunteers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <277a97cf-84c4-feb1-233a-121dc0daae9b@mail.utoronto.ca> WHy don't we send this out to the list.? There appear to be members with a lot of time on their hands.? Get them engaged in doing some policy work. Steph On 2018-07-08 23:32, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > while I shared the call for volunteers for drafting comments for NCSG, > there are 2 without volunteers yet and that is understandable because > the topics and also having too many public consultations at the same time: > > 1. CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft > Recommendations - Time for Filing rule > > 2. Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in > all gTLDs ? Policy Amendment Process > > > anyone in NCSG PC wants to take the lead as penholder for one for of > those comments? > > as usual, you can find the list of current public comments here: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 > > Best, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 9 17:40:38 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 10:40:38 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] For your review - proposed EPDP Team Composition language In-Reply-To: References: <6991F81A-78AF-4D60-8720-C666AC627EA3@davecake.net> Message-ID: That is hilarious....I am not sure what the dentist has planned...this molar has served me well, but is coming to the end of its days.? I could see that glint in her (the dentist's) eye..."oh boy, a crown"...... Paul promises to be a giggling, cheerful pain in the butt all the way through this EPDP.? I would rather deal with grumpy Metalitz, but it is what it is I guess... cheers Steph On 2018-07-09 10:12, farzaneh badii wrote: > Funny enough I have a dentist appointment tomorrow too. I am getting a > crown though. Being crowned tomorrow :))) > > BC to back off? > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:07 AM Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > Thanks David.? We have yet another meeting tomorrow .....early, I > have a dentist appointment at 1 pm.? A root canal is looking > preferable to joining the EPDP at this point....we have to find a > way to get the BC to back off, or it will never end. > > Steph > > On 2018-07-07 23:38, David Cake wrote: >> Thank you Stephanie for what I am sure must have been hard work >> ensuring equitable representation. >> >> David >> >>> On 8 Jul 2018, at 6:13 am, Rafik Dammak >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> here the latest proposal from the small team regarding composition. >>> Thanks, Stephanie for the work there. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: *Marika Konings* >> > >>> Date: dim. 8 juil. 2018 ??04:51 >>> Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - proposed EPDP Team >>> Composition language >>> To: Epdp-dt at icann.org >>> > >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> On behalf of the small team (Keith, Susan, Stephanie, Paul and >>> Donna ? on behalf of Council leadership), please find attached >>> the proposed text for the EPDP charter in relation to EPDP Team >>> Composition. The small team met on Friday and further considered >>> the input and proposals discussed during the DT meeting earlier >>> this week. As a result, in summary, the small team is >>> recommending that: >>> >>> * GNSO Members are appointed by GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SG). >>> o Each Contracted Party House Stakeholder Group >>> (Registries SG and Registrars SG) may appoint up to 3 >>> Members + 3 Alternates, >>> o Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the >>> Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial >>> Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates >>> (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further >>> broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency). >>> * The ALAC, SSAC and ccNSO will be invited to appoint 2 >>> members + 2 Alternates >>> * The GAC will be invited to appoint 3 members + 3 Alternates >>> * In addition, descriptions have been added to this section to >>> clarify the differences between the roles of members, >>> alternates, observers, Board liaisons, GNSO Council Liaison >>> and Staff Liaisons. >>> >>> If there are any fundamental concerns about these >>> recommendations or any other parts of the proposed text, please >>> share those with the DT list as soon as possible. Note that the >>> call for volunteers will need to be updated in accordance with >>> these recommendations, if no objections are raised. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> */Marika Konings/* >>> >>> /Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) / >>> >>> /Email: marika.konings at icann.org / >>> >>> // >>> >>> /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/ >>> >>> /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >>> ?and visiting the GNSO >>> Newcomer pages >>> . >>> / >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >>> >> 2018.docx>_______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 19:02:44 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 01:02:44 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments needing volunteers In-Reply-To: <277a97cf-84c4-feb1-233a-121dc0daae9b@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <277a97cf-84c4-feb1-233a-121dc0daae9b@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, They were already shared the call of volunteers in the mailing list as usual and they didn't get any expression of interest. Best, Rafik On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 11:20 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > WHy don't we send this out to the list. There appear to be members with a > lot of time on their hands. Get them engaged in doing some policy work. > > > Steph > On 2018-07-08 23:32, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > while I shared the call for volunteers for drafting comments for NCSG, > there are 2 without volunteers yet and that is understandable because the > topics and also having too many public consultations at the same time: > > 1. CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Recommendations > - Time for Filing rule > > 2. Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in > all gTLDs ? Policy Amendment Process > > > anyone in NCSG PC wants to take the lead as penholder for one for of those > comments? > > as usual, you can find the list of current public comments here: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 > > Best, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 9 23:38:13 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:38:13 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Updated scope section document + notes from today's EPDP scope call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10be79e0-208c-38a8-11f8-5ff9125eedb4@mail.utoronto.ca> I am not very happy with the "small team" efforts.? My comments are being ignored (surprise surprise) and the BC/IPC is being permitted to do back room drafting with staff, after coming in at the last minute (7 minutes to our meeting time) with new language.? I wanted that paragraph thrown out wholesale.... And the questions are not all legit, and if the answers to the gating questions are not approved by the community, no matter, we go on regardless. please take a minute to think about this mess, we are being driven by artificial deadlines to finish and agree. steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Updated scope section document + notes from today's EPDP scope call Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:08:28 +0000 From: Caitlin Tubergen To: Drazek, Keith , Susan Kawaguchi , stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca , Donna Austin , rafik.dammak at gmail.com , Heather Forrest , gnso-secs at icann.org , Paul McGrady (Google Docs) , Marika Konings Hi Team, Following our call today, Donna and I have been working on the Google Doc from this morning?s EPDP Scope call. Here are the changes we made: 1. Based on the comments from Paul and others regarding the difficulty of tracking comments in Google docs to the text, I inserted proposed text into the body of the document where the commenter is proposing it should go.? All proposed text is denoted by /italics and highlighted in yellow/?for ease of reference.? I?m hoping that will make it easier to discuss on the call by zeroing in on highlighted text. 2. I have removed references to phases and inserted references to gating questions. This text has been highlighted in yellow to note that it has been changed. 3. Proposed gating questions have their numbering highlighted in green. There may be other gating questions, but I highlighted the originally-proposed gating questions as a starting point. 4. Donna and I added some comments on what the group appeared to converge on during today?s call. 5. Lastly, I attached the notes from today?s call in case you find these helpful as you?re going through the document. Here is the link to the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TlcnfYuRhrCKVB28Rvb_ra6mCIWvjUDnJyJhSjbG5_Q/edit Thank you, and please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist in your review of the document. Kind regards, Caitlin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 9 July EPDP Scope Team Call.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 153357 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 02:21:48 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 08:21:48 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP call for volunteers draft In-Reply-To: References: <9FA82B13-E373-4BE3-B733-5652E9B9AA72@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi, I believe that in the previous few cases when it happened, PC members who were candidates recused themselves from the process. that is the usual practice in other selection committees like SSC. I think that is clear and straightforward. Best, Rafik Le lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 19:10, Ars?ne Tungali a ?crit : > Hi Rafik, > > Thanks for drafting this. > > I went ahead and mostly reviewed the call for participants. I made few > suggested edits (mostly typos, etc) and i think it looks great to me. > > However, I have a question with regards to the selection process. I > understand that the PC will decide on the candidates which i don't > have an issue with. I would like to know what we are doing with PC > members who are willing to be considered/appointed as well. > > I think they should recuse themselves from the selection process and > allow other PC members (who are not candidates) to carry > deliberations. I will appreciate any discussion on this. > > Regards, > Arsene > > 2018-07-09 6:32 UTC+02:00, Rafik Dammak : > > Hi all, > > > > please find here the draft for the call for volunteers to EPDP team and > > some suggestion for the matrix to conduct the selection (to be developed > > further) > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit > > . > > > > We can get the call for volunteers approved and issued within this week > > (this Wednesday) while continuing to tweak the selection process itself. > > you can encourage candidates to apply but please be clear that doesn't > mean > > any promise to be selected. > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I will use this to start drafting the NCSG call for volunteers for EPDP > > team in meantime and propose a process. > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > From: Marika Konings > > Date: ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 17:17 > > Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for volunteers and statement of > > participation > > To: epdp-dt at icann.org > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > You?ll find hereby for your review the draft call for volunteers which > > includes the proposed EPDP Statement of Participation: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WB8zOEiv1Vuqe2_JCEhsuWXRT49EGJGz7jqAI-zExNA/edit?usp=sharing > . > > Please use the comment function to include any suggestions / edits you > may > > have instead of redlining, including your name if you are not logged into > > Google. Note that this document may require further updating pending the > > outcome of the discussion on composition. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Marika > > > > > > > > *Marika Konings* > > > > *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation > > for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * > > > > *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * > > > > > > > > *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* > > > > *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > > and visiting the GNSO Newcomer > pages > > < > http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers > >. > > * > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Epdp-dt mailing list > > Epdp-dt at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > **Ars?ne Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa > Forum > * > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > < > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > < > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors > > > & Mexico > < > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors > >) > - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger > - ICANN's GNSO Council > Member. AFRINIC Fellow > ( > Mauritius > >)* > - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet > Freedom. > > Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English > ) and (French > ) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 02:25:04 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 08:25:04 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments needing volunteers In-Reply-To: References: <277a97cf-84c4-feb1-233a-121dc0daae9b@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: as it was sent in hurry and to avoid confusion :) the calls for volunteers for those 2 public comments were already sent to the mailing list and didn't get any volunteers. the 2 issues may need more familiarity with the related processes to be able to comment on them. Farzaneh already volunteered for the 2, Farell and Juan for the Redcross. I will help them too. Best, Rafik Le mar. 10 juil. 2018 ? 01:02, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi, > > They were already shared the call of volunteers in the mailing list as > usual and they didn't get any expression of interest. > > Best, > > Rafik > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 11:20 PM Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> WHy don't we send this out to the list. There appear to be members with >> a lot of time on their hands. Get them engaged in doing some policy work. >> >> >> Steph >> On 2018-07-08 23:32, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> while I shared the call for volunteers for drafting comments for NCSG, >> there are 2 without volunteers yet and that is understandable because the >> topics and also having too many public consultations at the same time: >> >> 1. CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft >> Recommendations - Time for Filing rule >> >> 2. Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in >> all gTLDs ? Policy Amendment Process >> >> >> anyone in NCSG PC wants to take the lead as penholder for one for of >> those comments? >> >> as usual, you can find the list of current public comments here: >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 05:06:01 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:06:01 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I stand to be corrected on the matter. we will need to consult with members and get EC approval too. I understand we have some time to get the appointment but at least get the review and approval in a few weeks. we need to finalize at least at the NCSG PC asap. Best, Rafik Le lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 13:25, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > > one of the task we have for a while is to approve the process for > nominating candidates for PIR Advisory Group and initiating the process > itself to get candidates. > > few of us reviewed the current proposal > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit > and we need to approve it quickly. After the approval of the process and > finalizing, I will try to draft the call for candidates. > > We should coordinate the call for candidates between PIR call and the Call > for EPDP team, priority to the latter, but both need to be done in coming > days. > > Best, > > Rafik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 08:31:16 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 01:31:16 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on EPDP Message-ID: Long time ago when I was 18, my friend had bought a car which was a big deal at the time and we were going from her parents' place to the university. My friend got distracted, wanting to show me a house in a street, she hit the traffic light and the traffic light broke collapsing over her car and just went blinking orange, green and red at our shocked faces. It was a bizarre feeling. Of course there was serious panic but also there was a very comical moment. The ePDP document with all the colorful comments and messiness gave me a very similar feeling. Now my main points: 1. We should not accept IPC addition to the mission. Also can we get rid of at a minimum from this paragraph? We are really working on "scope" and "mission" what does it mean at a minimum? is there a good reason it is there? If you don't remove it there is a risk that anything can be thrown at this document: "This EPDP Team is being chartered to determine, at *a minimum*, if the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data should become an ICANN Consensus Policy. As part of this determination, the EPDP Team is, *at a minimum*, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions: 2. Purposes for processing data. I am not so sure why Erika has added this question: *a5) How shall legitimacy of collecting data be defined (at least for data from personal data collected from European users)? (proposed addition from Erika Mann) * I thought legitimacy will be defined in accordance to purpose. Also the mention of "at least for data collected from European users" worries me. - Susan is suggesting to say should any purposes be "added". Sure, we could add that word but it has to be mentioned that according to ICANN purpose and mission, should any data be added. EDPB specifically says that ICANN should not conflate its purpose with the interest of third party 3. I see that now even the phase 1, phase 2 has been removed and access has become a part of EPDP. Can we get rid of accreditation and just discuss access at this EPDP? I see that Susan Kawaguchi supports this ... 4. Overall we need to have the EDPB recent guidelines into account. On data retention issue for example for example, the EDPB explicitly says ICANN has to justify why each element of data has to be retained for two years. So the question on data retention is not about whether ICANN should adjust data retention requirements but that if it is justifiable for ICANN to require data retention of 2 years and on which elements. 5. section J. Please reject all IPC additions. 6.Lets talk about access and not accreditation if we are not winning to remove access from EPDP. Seems like Susan agrees. Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 08:34:50 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 14:34:50 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Updated scope section document + notes from today's EPDP scope call In-Reply-To: <10be79e0-208c-38a8-11f8-5ff9125eedb4@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <10be79e0-208c-38a8-11f8-5ff9125eedb4@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, thanks, Stephanie for sharing this draft. indeed all those gating questions are of concerns and will impact the EPDP progress. Adding the accredited access model to the EPDP defacto make it longer than planned even if the team delivers the first final report for the temporary spec part. That goes beyond the planned 6 months and I don't think it is doable or can be acceptable to have an intense team like the envisioned EPDP to be asked to figure out the access model too. I don't know if the same volunteers or participants have the same background and knowledge on the 2 different issues. that should be treated by a separate team while we can argue about the gating questions and which can be treated by the EPDP team. We can suggest that the staggered phase can be started with some conditions TBD and not automatically. those questions and responses can be approved separately from the rest of other recommendations in the 1st final report. Best, Rafik Le mar. 10 juil. 2018 ? 05:38, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > I am not very happy with the "small team" efforts. My comments are being > ignored (surprise surprise) and the BC/IPC is being permitted to do back > room drafting with staff, after coming in at the last minute (7 minutes to > our meeting time) with new language. I wanted that paragraph thrown out > wholesale.... > > And the questions are not all legit, and if the answers to the gating > questions are not approved by the community, no matter, we go on regardless. > > please take a minute to think about this mess, we are being driven by > artificial deadlines to finish and agree. > > steph > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Updated scope section document + notes from today's EPDP scope > call > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:08:28 +0000 > From: Caitlin Tubergen > > To: Drazek, Keith , Susan > Kawaguchi , > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > , Donna Austin > , > rafik.dammak at gmail.com , > Heather Forrest , > gnso-secs at icann.org , Paul > McGrady (Google Docs) > > , > Marika Konings > > Hi Team, > > > > Following our call today, Donna and I have been working on the Google Doc > from this morning?s EPDP Scope call. > > > > Here are the changes we made: > > > > 1. Based on the comments from Paul and others regarding the difficulty > of tracking comments in Google docs to the text, I inserted proposed text > into the body of the document where the commenter is proposing it should > go. All proposed text is denoted by *italics and highlighted in > yellow* for ease of reference. I?m hoping that will make it easier to > discuss on the call by zeroing in on highlighted text. > 2. I have removed references to phases and inserted references to > gating questions. This text has been highlighted in yellow to note > that it has been changed. > 3. Proposed gating questions have their numbering highlighted in green. > There may be other gating questions, but I highlighted the > originally-proposed gating questions as a starting point. > 4. Donna and I added some comments on what the group appeared to > converge on during today?s call. > 5. Lastly, I attached the notes from today?s call in case you find > these helpful as you?re going through the document. > > > > Here is the link to the Google Doc: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TlcnfYuRhrCKVB28Rvb_ra6mCIWvjUDnJyJhSjbG5_Q/edit > > > > Thank you, and please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist > in your review of the document. > > > > Kind regards, > > > Caitlin > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 09:40:01 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 08:40:01 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP call for volunteers draft In-Reply-To: References: <9FA82B13-E373-4BE3-B733-5652E9B9AA72@icann.org> Message-ID: <4EF37845-2795-46E9-9EB5-BECAA0179232@gmail.com> Thanks Rafik for the clarification. ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jul 10, 2018, at 1:21 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > I believe that in the previous few cases when it happened, PC members who were candidates recused themselves from the process. that is the usual practice in other selection committees like SSC. I think that is clear and straightforward. > > Best, > > Rafik > >> Le lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 19:10, Ars?ne Tungali a ?crit : >> Hi Rafik, >> >> Thanks for drafting this. >> >> I went ahead and mostly reviewed the call for participants. I made few >> suggested edits (mostly typos, etc) and i think it looks great to me. >> >> However, I have a question with regards to the selection process. I >> understand that the PC will decide on the candidates which i don't >> have an issue with. I would like to know what we are doing with PC >> members who are willing to be considered/appointed as well. >> >> I think they should recuse themselves from the selection process and >> allow other PC members (who are not candidates) to carry >> deliberations. I will appreciate any discussion on this. >> >> Regards, >> Arsene >> >> 2018-07-09 6:32 UTC+02:00, Rafik Dammak : >> > Hi all, >> > >> > please find here the draft for the call for volunteers to EPDP team and >> > some suggestion for the matrix to conduct the selection (to be developed >> > further) >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit >> > . >> > >> > We can get the call for volunteers approved and issued within this week >> > (this Wednesday) while continuing to tweak the selection process itself. >> > you can encourage candidates to apply but please be clear that doesn't mean >> > any promise to be selected. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I will use this to start drafting the NCSG call for volunteers for EPDP >> > team in meantime and propose a process. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> > From: Marika Konings >> > Date: ven. 6 juil. 2018 ? 17:17 >> > Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for volunteers and statement of >> > participation >> > To: epdp-dt at icann.org >> > >> > >> > Dear All, >> > >> > >> > >> > You?ll find hereby for your review the draft call for volunteers which >> > includes the proposed EPDP Statement of Participation: >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WB8zOEiv1Vuqe2_JCEhsuWXRT49EGJGz7jqAI-zExNA/edit?usp=sharing. >> > Please use the comment function to include any suggestions / edits you may >> > have instead of redlining, including your name if you are not logged into >> > Google. Note that this document may require further updating pending the >> > outcome of the discussion on composition. >> > >> > >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > >> > >> > Marika >> > >> > >> > >> > *Marika Konings* >> > >> > *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation >> > for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * >> > >> > *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * >> > >> > >> > >> > *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* >> > >> > *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >> > and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >> > . >> > * >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Epdp-dt mailing list >> > Epdp-dt at icann.org >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> > >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------ >> **Ars?ne Tungali* * >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >> *, >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum >> * >> Tel: +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >> >> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >> >> & Mexico >> ) >> - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger >> - ICANN's GNSO Council >> Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( >> Mauritius >> )* >> - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet >> Freedom. >> >> Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English >> ) and (French >> ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 10 11:58:31 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 04:58:31 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP call for volunteers draft In-Reply-To: References: <9FA82B13-E373-4BE3-B733-5652E9B9AA72@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, Thanks for drafting this; I've reviewed the document now and made a few suggested edits. I think the call is ready to be launched tomorrow. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 9 July 2018 6:32 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > ?? > >
Hi all,

please find here the draft for the call for volunteers to EPDP team and some suggestion for the matrix to conduct the selection (to be developed further)?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit.?

We can get the call for volunteers approved and issued within this week? (this Wednesday) while continuing to tweak the?selection process itself. you can encourage candidates to apply but please be clear that doesn't mean any promise to be selected.

Best,

Rafik


---------- Forwarded message ---------



Hi all,

I will use this to start drafting the NCSG call for volunteers for EPDP team in meantime and propose a process.

Best,

Rafik


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Date: ven. 6 juil. 2018 ??17:17
Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for volunteers and statement of participation
To: epdp-dt at icann.org <epdp-dt at icann.org>


> >
> >
> >

Dear All,

> >

?

> >

You?ll find hereby for your review the draft call for volunteers which includes the proposed EPDP Statement of Participation: > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WB8zOEiv1Vuqe2_JCEhsuWXRT49EGJGz7jqAI-zExNA/edit?usp=sharing. Please use the comment function to include any suggestions / edits you may have instead of redlining, including your name if you are not logged into Google. > > Note that this document may require further updating pending the outcome of the discussion on composition. ?

> >

?

> >

Best regards,

> >

?

> >

Marika

> >

?

> >

Marika Konings

> >

Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)?

> >

Email: > > marika.konings at icann.org??

> >

?

> >

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

> >

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our?interactive courses?and visiting the?GNSO > > Newcomer pages.?

> >

?

> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Epdp-dt mailing list
> > Epdp-dt at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
> >
From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 10 12:11:54 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 05:11:54 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Specific Review timeline short term plan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for drafting this Farzi; I have made some suggested edits now. I think it's ready to share with our members, too. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 9 July 2018 5:21 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi everyone > > Here is my first stab at the public comment on the specific review short term timeline. We just need to streamline our principles. Transparency and accountability come before saving money. > > Here is the draft, please comment I will soon send it to the NCSG list. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit > > Best > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 10 12:18:13 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 05:18:13 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on Long Term options to adjust for Reviews timeline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <-4Hu5yVuoL5llMLHnSy3HdVDTPe_QPMIbXNR2KCW6q8zv_7O9MfLXD2brSI2thM76zcI3U6O5ue5OrGNU3tfqvKrlckDw_zel3bgkQU6HU8=@ferdeline.com> I think there is some text missing from this comment, but maybe it is my device (I am on a train and trying to view and edit Google Docs over its shaky, intermittent wifi is painful). I will try again later... Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 9 July 2018 6:23 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Here is another comment on long term options to adjust reviews timeline > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit > > We need to share with the mailing list soon. Deadline is 31 July. > > Best > > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 12:41:11 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:41:11 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP call for volunteers draft In-Reply-To: References: <9FA82B13-E373-4BE3-B733-5652E9B9AA72@icann.org> Message-ID: Thanks Ayden and Arsene for the edits. I went through and accept most of them while put comments on couple of them (not something blocking) Waiting for other PC members to speak in the coming hours. We should initiate the process tomorrow. We got 24 hours to do so. Rafik On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 5:58 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi Rafik, > > Thanks for drafting this; I've reviewed the document now and made a few > suggested edits. I think the call is ready to be launched tomorrow. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > On 9 July 2018 6:32 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > ?? > > > >
Hi all,

please find here the draft for > the call for volunteers to EPDP team and some suggestion for the matrix to > conduct the selection (to be developed further) > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit.

We > can get the call for volunteers approved and issued within this week (this > Wednesday) while continuing to tweak the selection process itself. you can > encourage candidates to apply but please be clear that doesn't mean any > promise to be > selected.

Best,

Rafik


class="gmail_quote">
---------- Forwarded message > ---------



Hi all,

I > will use this to start drafting the NCSG call for volunteers for EPDP team > in meantime and propose a > process.

Best,

Rafik


class="gmail_quote">
---------- Forwarded message > ---------
From: Marika > Konings < target="_blank">marika.konings at icann.org>
Date: ven. 6 > juil. 2018 ? 17:17
Subject: [Epdp-dt] For your review - call for > volunteers and statement of participation
To: epdp-dt at icann.org <epdp-dt at icann.org > >


> > > >
> > > >
class="gmail-m_-5985193691036887690m_-7620239458682063619WordSection1"> > > > >

Dear > All,

> > > >

style="font-size:11pt">

> > > >

You?ll find hereby for > your review the draft call for volunteers which includes the proposed EPDP > Statement of Participation: > > > > target="_blank"> > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WB8zOEiv1Vuqe2_JCEhsuWXRT49EGJGz7jqAI-zExNA/edit?usp=sharing. > Please use the comment function to include any suggestions / edits you may > have instead of redlining, including your name if you are not logged into > Google. > > > > Note that this document may require further updating pending the outcome > of the discussion on composition.

> > > >

style="font-size:11pt">

> > > >

Best > regards,

> > > >

style="font-size:11pt">

> > > >

style="font-size:11pt">Marika

> > > >

style="font-size:11pt">

> > > >

Marika > Konings

> > > >

Vice President, > Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names > and Numbers (ICANN)

> > > >

Email: href="mailto:marika.konings at icann.org" target="_blank"> > > > > marika.konings at icann.org >

> > > >

style="font-size:11pt">

> > > >

Follow the GNSO via > Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

> > > >

Find out more about > the GNSO by taking our id="gmail-TSRSpan_88"> id="TSRSpan_90"> src="chrome-extension://cfeleongjhdjephegmmmdjgbfjiindbe/./images/webicon_green.png" > style="width: 16px; height: 16px; border: 0px;"> style="background-color:rgb(184,234,184)"> style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">interactive courses and visiting > the class="gmail-TSRWebRatingIcon" style="width: 16px; height: 16px; border: > 0px;"> class="TSRWebRatingIcon" > src="chrome-extension://cfeleongjhdjephegmmmdjgbfjiindbe/./images/webicon_green.png" > style="width: 16px; height: 16px; border: 0px;"> target="_blank" style="background-color:rgb(184,234,184)"> style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">GNSO > > > > Newcomer pages.

> > > >

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Epdp-dt mailing list
> > > > Epdp-dt at icann.org >
> > > > rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
> > > >
> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 10 12:51:22 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 05:51:22 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Updated scope section document + notes from today's EPDP scope call In-Reply-To: <10be79e0-208c-38a8-11f8-5ff9125eedb4@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <10be79e0-208c-38a8-11f8-5ff9125eedb4@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <3jOX18RQcuDr6DQmfE5LncvKIO4zdOblpGJgIyRkf7PP78zUxqYmgX0kxTp85nNE2mkchpGx66TSDWPxDQM3VzC62gm7iOrFXR5ZZb2Ew6Y=@ferdeline.com> This is outrageous; when Stephanie submits a redlined document, it is too difficult for ICANN staff to consider and she must start a fresh, adding the comments manually into the Google Doc that didn't exist in the first place and necessitated making the comments in Word (because Marika refused initially to enable comments on the Google Doc, despite repeated requests from Rubens, as she wanted to be the gatekeeper). Now the IPC sends in a redlined document and every single comment is added by staff into the document. My edits were all rejected by Marika last week. This is not fair, and I think we should formally complain about this. We need to start documenting staff bias. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 9 July 2018 10:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I am not very happy with the "small team" efforts. My comments are being ignored (surprise surprise) and the BC/IPC is being permitted to do back room drafting with staff, after coming in at the last minute (7 minutes to our meeting time) with new language. I wanted that paragraph thrown out wholesale.... > > And the questions are not all legit, and if the answers to the gating questions are not approved by the community, no matter, we go on regardless. > > please take a minute to think about this mess, we are being driven by artificial deadlines to finish and agree. > > steph > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Updated scope section document + notes from today's EPDP scope call > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:08:28 +0000 > From: Caitlin Tubergen [](mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org) > > To: Drazek, Keith [](mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com), Susan Kawaguchi [](mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com), stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca [](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca), Donna Austin [](mailto:donna.austin at team.neustar), rafik.dammak at gmail.com [](mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com), Heather Forrest [](mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com), gnso-secs at icann.org [](mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org), Paul McGrady (Google Docs) [](mailto:d+MTE3MzIyNzA1MjYyOTU3ODM2OTY2-MTE1MTM1NDA5ODg5NTEyMTUyMzA5 at docs.google.com), Marika Konings [](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org) > > Hi Team, > > Following our call today, Donna and I have been working on the Google Doc from this morning?s EPDP Scope call. > > Here are the changes we made: > > - Based on the comments from Paul and others regarding the difficulty of tracking comments in Google docs to the text, I inserted proposed text into the body of the document where the commenter is proposing it should go. All proposed text is denoted by italics and highlighted in yellow for ease of reference. I?m hoping that will make it easier to discuss on the call by zeroing in on highlighted text. > > - I have removed references to phases and inserted references to gating questions. This text has been highlighted in yellow to note that it has been changed. > > - Proposed gating questions have their numbering highlighted in green. There may be other gating questions, but I highlighted the originally-proposed gating questions as a starting point. > > - Donna and I added some comments on what the group appeared to converge on during today?s call. > > - Lastly, I attached the notes from today?s call in case you find these helpful as you?re going through the document. > > Here is the link to the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TlcnfYuRhrCKVB28Rvb_ra6mCIWvjUDnJyJhSjbG5_Q/edit > > Thank you, and please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist in your review of the document. > > Kind regards, > > Caitlin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 10 12:57:35 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 05:57:35 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <_rDHoT6W-55rJa5bcScIbOBazYDNaW-4hUT3Rv-Y49FUDGOSPnHLdFarTBki9piDhGh7keWFFzW3kvSpz5U1F6LXNT61fl_9qksllY8b5eE=@ferdeline.com> Thanks Rafik; the procedure looks okay to me now (but I think I may have drafted it...) - so I would support opening it up to comments from the membership. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 10 July 2018 4:06 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > I stand to be corrected on the matter. we will need to consult with members and get EC approval too. I understand we have some time to get the appointment but at least get the review and approval in a few weeks. > we need to finalize at least at the NCSG PC asap. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 13:25, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> one of the task we have for a while is to approve the process for nominating candidates for PIR Advisory Group and initiating the process itself to get candidates. >> >> few of us reviewed the current proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit and we need to approve it quickly. After the approval of the process and finalizing, I will try to draft the call for candidates. >> >> We should coordinate the call for candidates between PIR call and the Call for EPDP team, priority to the latter, but both need to be done in coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 10 13:07:29 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 06:07:29 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on EPDP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pam Little has repeatedly asked that "at a minimum" be removed from the language in the EPDP scope, and this was +1'd by Stephanie, but of course it was not actioned by staff... (the IPC's proposed language which received no cross-stakeholder group support was simply copied and pasted into the same document). Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 10 July 2018 7:31 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Long time ago when I was 18, my friend had bought a car which was a big deal at the time and we were going from her parents' place to the university. My friend got distracted, wanting to show me a house in a street, she hit the traffic light and the traffic light broke collapsing over her car and just went blinking orange, green and red at our shocked faces. It was a bizarre feeling. Of course there was serious panic but also there was a very comical moment. The ePDP document with all the colorful comments and messiness gave me a very similar feeling. > > Now my main points: > > 1. We should not accept IPC addition to the mission. Also can we get rid of at a minimum from this paragraph? We are really working on "scope" and "mission" what does it mean at a minimum? is there a good reason it is there? If you don't remove it there is a risk that anything can be thrown at this document: > > "This EPDP Team is being chartered to determine, at a minimum, if the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data should become an ICANN Consensus Policy. As part of this determination, the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions: > > 2. Purposes for processing data. I am not so sure why Erika has added this question: > > a5) How shall legitimacy of collecting data be defined (at least for data from personal data collected from European users)? (proposed addition from Erika Mann) > > I thought legitimacy will be defined in accordance to purpose. Also the mention of "at least for data collected from European users" worries me. > > - Susan is suggesting to say should any purposes be "added". Sure, we could add that word but it has to be mentioned that according to ICANN purpose and mission, should any data be added. EDPB specifically says that ICANN should not conflate its purpose with the interest of third party > > 3. I see that now even the phase 1, phase 2 has been removed and access has become a part of EPDP. Can we get rid of accreditation and just discuss access at this EPDP? I see that Susan Kawaguchi supports this ... > > 4. Overall we need to have the EDPB recent guidelines into account. On data retention issue for example for example, the EDPB explicitly says ICANN has to justify why each element of data has to be retained for two years. So the question on data retention is not about whether ICANN should adjust data retention requirements but that if it is justifiable for ICANN to require data retention of 2 years and on which elements. > > 5. section J. Please reject all IPC additions. > > 6.Lets talk about access and not accreditation if we are not winning to remove access from EPDP. Seems like Susan agrees. > > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Tue Jul 10 13:47:38 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:47:38 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on Long Term options to adjust for Reviews timeline In-Reply-To: <-4Hu5yVuoL5llMLHnSy3HdVDTPe_QPMIbXNR2KCW6q8zv_7O9MfLXD2brSI2thM76zcI3U6O5ue5OrGNU3tfqvKrlckDw_zel3bgkQU6HU8=@ferdeline.com> References: <-4Hu5yVuoL5llMLHnSy3HdVDTPe_QPMIbXNR2KCW6q8zv_7O9MfLXD2brSI2thM76zcI3U6O5ue5OrGNU3tfqvKrlckDw_zel3bgkQU6HU8=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Yes Ayden, I do think so too and I left a comment to notify it. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 10 Jul 2018, at 11:18, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I think there is some text missing from this comment, but maybe it is my device (I am on a train and trying to view and edit Google Docs over its shaky, intermittent wifi is painful). I will try again later... > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 9 July 2018 6:23 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > >> Here is another comment on long term options to adjust reviews timeline >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> >> We need to share with the mailing list soon. Deadline is 31 July. >> >> Best >> >> >> Farzaneh > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Jul 10 16:10:36 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 09:10:36 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on Long Term options to adjust for Reviews timeline In-Reply-To: <-4Hu5yVuoL5llMLHnSy3HdVDTPe_QPMIbXNR2KCW6q8zv_7O9MfLXD2brSI2thM76zcI3U6O5ue5OrGNU3tfqvKrlckDw_zel3bgkQU6HU8=@ferdeline.com> References: <-4Hu5yVuoL5llMLHnSy3HdVDTPe_QPMIbXNR2KCW6q8zv_7O9MfLXD2brSI2thM76zcI3U6O5ue5OrGNU3tfqvKrlckDw_zel3bgkQU6HU8=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <3a79b79b-f6b8-2aa6-b510-f233a96687bc@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, Agree with Ayden that there is text missing from this comment -- and it means that I (others?) don't (won't) understand what we are recommending. The following recommendation of ICANN.org, I think, makes sense: "Staggering the reviews to have no more than one Specific Review and two Organizational Reviews running concurrently."? Given two PDP Working Groups, one EPDP, and much more taking place in ICANN and the GNSO, I think this staggering makes sense and will help us in finding good people to join these reviews. Best, Kathy On 7/10/2018 5:18 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I think there is some text missing from this comment, but maybe it is > my device (I am on a train and trying to view and edit Google Docs > over its shaky, intermittent wifi is painful). I will try again later... > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 9 July 2018 6:23 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > >> Here is another comment on long term?options to adjust reviews timeline >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> >> We need to share with the mailing list soon. Deadline is 31 July. >> >> Best >> >> >> Farzaneh > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Jul 10 16:15:04 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 09:15:04 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Updated scope section document + notes from today's EPDP scope call In-Reply-To: <3jOX18RQcuDr6DQmfE5LncvKIO4zdOblpGJgIyRkf7PP78zUxqYmgX0kxTp85nNE2mkchpGx66TSDWPxDQM3VzC62gm7iOrFXR5ZZb2Ew6Y=@ferdeline.com> References: <10be79e0-208c-38a8-11f8-5ff9125eedb4@mail.utoronto.ca> <3jOX18RQcuDr6DQmfE5LncvKIO4zdOblpGJgIyRkf7PP78zUxqYmgX0kxTp85nNE2mkchpGx66TSDWPxDQM3VzC62gm7iOrFXR5ZZb2Ew6Y=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <8d220d33-120e-dbda-7174-49941055f922@kathykleiman.com> There is, unfortunately, precedent for this conduct... we've seen it before and fought it before. Tx you for fighting it now. Kathy On 7/10/2018 5:51 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > This is outrageous; when Stephanie submits a redlined document, it is > too difficult for ICANN staff to consider and she must start a fresh, > adding the comments manually into the Google Doc that didn't exist in > the first place and necessitated making the comments in Word (because > Marika refused initially to enable comments on the Google Doc, despite > repeated requests from Rubens, as she wanted to be the gatekeeper). > Now the IPC sends in a redlined document and every single comment is > added by staff into the document. My edits were all rejected by Marika > last week. This is not fair, and I think we should formally complain > about this. We need to start documenting staff bias. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 9 July 2018 10:38 PM, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: > >> I am not very happy with the "small team" efforts.? My comments are >> being ignored (surprise surprise) and the BC/IPC is being permitted >> to do back room drafting with staff, after coming in at the last >> minute (7 minutes to our meeting time) with new language.? I wanted >> that paragraph thrown out wholesale.... >> >> And the questions are not all legit, and if the answers to the gating >> questions are not approved by the community, no matter, we go on >> regardless. >> >> please take a minute to think about this mess, we are being driven by >> artificial deadlines to finish and agree. >> >> steph >> >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: >> Updated scope section document + notes from today's EPDP scope call >> Date: >> Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:08:28 +0000 >> From: >> Caitlin Tubergen >> To: >> Drazek, Keith , Susan Kawaguchi >> , stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> , Donna Austin >> , rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> , Heather Forrest , >> gnso-secs at icann.org , Paul McGrady (Google Docs) >> , >> Marika Konings >> >> >> >> Hi Team, >> >> >> Following our call today, Donna and I have been working on the Google >> Doc from this morning?s EPDP Scope call. >> >> >> Here are the changes we made: >> >> >> 1. Based on the comments from Paul and others regarding the >> difficulty of tracking comments in Google docs to the text, I >> inserted proposed text into the body of the document where the >> commenter is proposing it should go.? All proposed text is >> denoted by /italics and highlighted in yellow/?for ease of >> reference.? I?m hoping that will make it easier to discuss on the >> call by zeroing in on highlighted text. >> 2. I have removed references to phases and inserted references to >> gating questions. This text has been highlighted in yellow to >> note that it has been changed. >> 3. Proposed gating questions have their numbering highlighted in >> green. There may be other gating questions, but I highlighted the >> originally-proposed gating questions as a starting point. >> 4. Donna and I added some comments on what the group appeared to >> converge on during today?s call. >> 5. Lastly, I attached the notes from today?s call in case you find >> these helpful as you?re going through the document. >> >> >> Here is the link to the Google Doc: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TlcnfYuRhrCKVB28Rvb_ra6mCIWvjUDnJyJhSjbG5_Q/edit >> >> >> Thank you, and please let me know if there is anything I can do to >> assist in your review of the document. >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Caitlin >> >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 16:19:42 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 09:19:42 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on Long Term options to adjust for Reviews timeline In-Reply-To: <3a79b79b-f6b8-2aa6-b510-f233a96687bc@kathykleiman.com> References: <-4Hu5yVuoL5llMLHnSy3HdVDTPe_QPMIbXNR2KCW6q8zv_7O9MfLXD2brSI2thM76zcI3U6O5ue5OrGNU3tfqvKrlckDw_zel3bgkQU6HU8=@ferdeline.com> <3a79b79b-f6b8-2aa6-b510-f233a96687bc@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Text is not missing. I just copy-pasted the text from ICANN document and turned out to be weird which I will fix and try to finalize it more assertively. The staggering review is a very bad idea. there is a risk that ICANN org and Board will pick and choose. It does not allow more than two reviews concurrently and if an organization or a group is really in need of being reviewed it will be postponed and checks and balances against them wont be in place. mind you that if reviews of a group is ongoing they are mindful about their accountability. Like NomCom review became essential in changing NomCom behavior. I suggest adding timing criteria for the reasons I stated in the public comment. Best Farzaneh On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:11 AM Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi All, Agree with Ayden that there is text missing from this comment -- > and it means that I (others?) don't (won't) understand what we are > recommending. > > The following recommendation of ICANN.org, I think, makes sense: > "Staggering the reviews to have no more than one Specific Review and two > Organizational Reviews running concurrently." Given two PDP Working > Groups, one EPDP, and much more taking place in ICANN and the GNSO, I think > this staggering makes sense and will help us in finding good people to join > these reviews. > > Best, Kathy > > On 7/10/2018 5:18 AM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I think there is some text missing from this comment, but maybe it is my > device (I am on a train and trying to view and edit Google Docs over its > shaky, intermittent wifi is painful). I will try again later... > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 9 July 2018 6:23 AM, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > Here is another comment on long term options to adjust reviews timeline > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit > > We need to share with the mailing list soon. Deadline is 31 July. > > Best > > > Farzaneh > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Jul 10 18:45:21 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:45:21 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Sensitive data - GDPR Article 9 In-Reply-To: References: <10be79e0-208c-38a8-11f8-5ff9125eedb4@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <8efabcba-19fd-1a87-4762-931529beafc5@kathykleiman.com> Hi Rafik, Stephanie, Ayden, Martin, Tatiana, Arsene and All, I'm worried about the absence in the EPDP draft of "sensitive data." Sensitive data is the part of the GDPR that protects data of those engaged in political, religious, racial, ethnic, LGBQT activities. It's a section of the GDPR designed created to protect people who express minority views -- the very type of organizations who are often members of NCSG. Because GDPR Article 9 protects "sensitive data," and organizations (which are often "legal entities"), it should be to be expressly called out in EDPD draft, e.g., as "personal /and sensitive /data." The protections GDPR Article 9 also fundamentally implicated in the calculus of disclosure, e.g., when ?access to registration data based on legitimate interests" [is or is] "not outweighed by the fundamental rights of relevant data subjects." /https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr// I've written a short memo (attached) for you on this topic - with guidance from Council of Europe's Data Protection Unit. Who else on Council should I circulate it to? Good luck with the negotiations! Best, Kathy On 7/10/2018 1:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > thanks, Stephanie for sharing this draft. > indeed all those gating questions are of concerns and will impact the > EPDP progress. Adding the accredited access model to the EPDP defacto > make it longer than planned even if the team delivers the first final > report for the temporary spec part. That goes beyond the planned 6 > months and I don't think it is doable or can be acceptable to have an > intense team like the envisioned EPDP to be asked to figure out the > access model too. I don't know if the same volunteers or participants > have the same background and knowledge on the 2 different issues. > that should be treated by a separate team while we can argue about the > gating questions and which can be treated by the EPDP team. We can > suggest that the staggered phase can be started with some conditions > TBD and not automatically. those questions and responses can be > approved separately from the rest of other recommendations in the 1st > final report. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le?mar. 10 juil. 2018 ??05:38, Stephanie Perrin > > a ?crit?: > > I am not very happy with the "small team" efforts. My comments are > being ignored (surprise surprise) and the BC/IPC is being > permitted to do back room drafting with staff, after coming in at > the last minute (7 minutes to our meeting time) with new > language.? I wanted that paragraph thrown out wholesale.... > > And the questions are not all legit, and if the answers to the > gating questions are not approved by the community, no matter, we > go on regardless. > > please take a minute to think about this mess, we are being driven > by artificial deadlines to finish and agree. > > steph > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Updated scope section document + notes from today's EPDP > scope call > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:08:28 +0000 > From: Caitlin Tubergen > > To: Drazek, Keith > , Susan Kawaguchi > , > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > > > , Donna Austin > , > rafik.dammak at gmail.com > , Heather > Forrest , > gnso-secs at icann.org > , Paul McGrady > (Google Docs) > > , > Marika Konings > > > > > Hi Team, > > Following our call today, Donna and I have been working on the > Google Doc from this morning?s EPDP Scope call. > > Here are the changes we made: > > 1. Based on the comments from Paul and others regarding the > difficulty of tracking comments in Google docs to the text, I > inserted proposed text into the body of the document where the > commenter is proposing it should go.? All proposed text is > denoted by /italics and highlighted in yellow/?for ease of > reference.? I?m hoping that will make it easier to discuss on > the call by zeroing in on highlighted text. > 2. I have removed references to phases and inserted references to > gating questions. This text has been highlighted in yellow to > note that it has been changed. > 3. Proposed gating questions have their numbering highlighted in > green. There may be other gating questions, but I highlighted > the originally-proposed gating questions as a starting point. > 4. Donna and I added some comments on what the group appeared to > converge on during today?s call. > 5. Lastly, I attached the notes from today?s call in case you > find these helpful as you?re going through the document. > > Here is the link to the Google Doc: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TlcnfYuRhrCKVB28Rvb_ra6mCIWvjUDnJyJhSjbG5_Q/edit > > Thank you, and please let me know if there is anything I can do to > assist in your review of the document. > > Kind regards, > > > Caitlin > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Sensitive personal data under GDPR Article 9 - and a few EPDP edits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16809 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 18:46:33 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:46:33 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Appointment of NCSG representative to PIR Advisory Council In-Reply-To: <_rDHoT6W-55rJa5bcScIbOBazYDNaW-4hUT3Rv-Y49FUDGOSPnHLdFarTBki9piDhGh7keWFFzW3kvSpz5U1F6LXNT61fl_9qksllY8b5eE=@ferdeline.com> References: <_rDHoT6W-55rJa5bcScIbOBazYDNaW-4hUT3Rv-Y49FUDGOSPnHLdFarTBki9piDhGh7keWFFzW3kvSpz5U1F6LXNT61fl_9qksllY8b5eE=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Same here, it looks thorough. Cheers, Martin > On 10 Jul 2018, at 06:57, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Thanks Rafik; the procedure looks okay to me now (but I think I may have drafted it...) - so I would support opening it up to comments from the membership. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 10 July 2018 4:06 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I stand to be corrected on the matter. we will need to consult with members and get EC approval too. I understand we have some time to get the appointment but at least get the review and approval in a few weeks. >> we need to finalize at least at the NCSG PC asap. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 13:25, Rafik Dammak > a ?crit : >> Hi all, >> >> one of the task we have for a while is to approve the process for nominating candidates for PIR Advisory Group and initiating the process itself to get candidates. >> >> few of us reviewed the current proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iuw3Jt02Z6xZZBpOpUKWCNZjM_8k_uOSTc4IG3N_OTA/edit and we need to approve it quickly. After the approval of the process and finalizing, I will try to draft the call for candidates. >> >> We should coordinate the call for candidates between PIR call and the Call for EPDP team, priority to the latter, but both need to be done in coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 18:53:41 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:53:41 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Sensitive data - GDPR Article 9 In-Reply-To: <8efabcba-19fd-1a87-4762-931529beafc5@kathykleiman.com> References: <10be79e0-208c-38a8-11f8-5ff9125eedb4@mail.utoronto.ca> <8efabcba-19fd-1a87-4762-931529beafc5@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Kathy This is the fight we have started. I think they water down the problem by calling it access to nonpublic whois data which if I am not wrong is simply personal information of data subjects! I see Ayden has commented on the document to that effect and I think we should add sensitive data too. On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:46 AM Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi Rafik, Stephanie, Ayden, Martin, Tatiana, Arsene and All, > I'm worried about the absence in the EPDP draft of "sensitive data." > Sensitive data is the part of the GDPR that protects data of those engaged > in political, religious, racial, ethnic, LGBQT activities. It's a section > of the GDPR designed created to protect people who express minority views > -- the very type of organizations who are often members of NCSG. > > Because GDPR Article 9 protects "sensitive data," and organizations (which > are often "legal entities"), it should be to be expressly called out in > EDPD draft, e.g., as "personal *and sensitive *data." The protections > GDPR Article 9 also fundamentally implicated in the calculus of disclosure, > e.g., when ?access to registration data based on legitimate interests" [is > or is] "not outweighed by the fundamental rights of relevant data > subjects." * https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/ > * > > I've written a short memo (attached) for you on this topic - with guidance > from Council of Europe's Data Protection Unit. Who else on Council should I > circulate it to? Good luck with the negotiations! > Best, > Kathy > > On 7/10/2018 1:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > thanks, Stephanie for sharing this draft. > indeed all those gating questions are of concerns and will impact the EPDP > progress. Adding the accredited access model to the EPDP defacto make it > longer than planned even if the team delivers the first final report for > the temporary spec part. That goes beyond the planned 6 months and I don't > think it is doable or can be acceptable to have an intense team like the > envisioned EPDP to be asked to figure out the access model too. I don't > know if the same volunteers or participants have the same background and > knowledge on the 2 different issues. > that should be treated by a separate team while we can argue about the > gating questions and which can be treated by the EPDP team. We can suggest > that the staggered phase can be started with some conditions TBD and not > automatically. those questions and responses can be approved separately > from the rest of other recommendations in the 1st final report. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 10 juil. 2018 ? 05:38, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > >> I am not very happy with the "small team" efforts. My comments are being >> ignored (surprise surprise) and the BC/IPC is being permitted to do back >> room drafting with staff, after coming in at the last minute (7 minutes to >> our meeting time) with new language. I wanted that paragraph thrown out >> wholesale.... >> >> And the questions are not all legit, and if the answers to the gating >> questions are not approved by the community, no matter, we go on regardless. >> >> please take a minute to think about this mess, we are being driven by >> artificial deadlines to finish and agree. >> >> steph >> >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Updated scope section document + notes from today's EPDP scope >> call >> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:08:28 +0000 >> From: Caitlin Tubergen >> >> To: Drazek, Keith , Susan >> Kawaguchi , >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> , Donna Austin >> , >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com , >> Heather Forrest , >> gnso-secs at icann.org , Paul >> McGrady (Google Docs) >> >> , >> Marika Konings >> >> Hi Team, >> >> >> >> Following our call today, Donna and I have been working on the Google Doc >> from this morning?s EPDP Scope call. >> >> >> >> Here are the changes we made: >> >> >> >> 1. Based on the comments from Paul and others regarding the >> difficulty of tracking comments in Google docs to the text, I inserted >> proposed text into the body of the document where the commenter is >> proposing it should go. All proposed text is denoted by *italics and >> highlighted in yellow* for ease of reference. I?m hoping that will >> make it easier to discuss on the call by zeroing in on highlighted text. >> 2. I have removed references to phases and inserted references to >> gating questions. This text has been highlighted in yellow to note >> that it has been changed. >> 3. Proposed gating questions have their numbering highlighted in green. >> There may be other gating questions, but I highlighted the >> originally-proposed gating questions as a starting point. >> 4. Donna and I added some comments on what the group appeared to >> converge on during today?s call. >> 5. Lastly, I attached the notes from today?s call in case you find >> these helpful as you?re going through the document. >> >> >> >> Here is the link to the Google Doc: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TlcnfYuRhrCKVB28Rvb_ra6mCIWvjUDnJyJhSjbG5_Q/edit >> >> >> >> Thank you, and please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist >> in your review of the document. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Caitlin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Jul 10 19:13:40 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:13:40 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Sensitive data - GDPR Article 9 In-Reply-To: References: <10be79e0-208c-38a8-11f8-5ff9125eedb4@mail.utoronto.ca> <8efabcba-19fd-1a87-4762-931529beafc5@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <31f604cc-bdee-ffeb-d627-79b4d89b8ad1@kathykleiman.com> Agreed, Farzi, that in calling everything "nonpublic WHOIS data," they are simplifying a complicated subject. I was glad that the Board, in the Temp Spec, chose not to differentiate between "legal persons" and "individuals" for exactly this reason -- as many organizations are legal persons and highly protected for the sensitive political, religious, sexual, work that they do! If we don't assess these protections now... in access evaluation... how do we properly and legally balance rights? Tx for your work!! Best, K On 7/10/2018 11:53 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Kathy > > This is the fight we have started. I think they water down the problem > by calling it access to nonpublic whois data which if I am not wrong > is simply personal information of data subjects! I see Ayden has > commented on the document to that effect and I think we should add > sensitive data too. > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:46 AM Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > > Hi Rafik, Stephanie, Ayden, Martin, Tatiana, Arsene and All, > I'm worried about the absence in the EPDP draft of "sensitive > data." Sensitive data is the part of the GDPR that protects data > of those engaged in political, religious, racial, ethnic, LGBQT > activities. It's a section of the GDPR designed created to protect > people who express minority views -- the very type of > organizations who are often members of NCSG. > > Because GDPR Article 9 protects "sensitive data," and > organizations (which are often "legal entities"), it should be to > be expressly called out in EDPD draft, e.g., as "personal /and > sensitive /data." The protections GDPR Article 9 also > fundamentally implicated in the calculus of disclosure, e.g., when > ?access to registration data based on legitimate interests" [is or > is] "not outweighed by the fundamental rights of relevant data > subjects." /https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr// > > I've written a short memo (attached) for you on this topic - with > guidance from Council of Europe's Data Protection Unit. Who else > on Council should I circulate it to? Good luck with the negotiations! > Best, > Kathy > > On 7/10/2018 1:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi, >> >> thanks, Stephanie for sharing this draft. >> indeed all those gating questions are of concerns and will impact >> the EPDP progress. Adding the accredited access model to the EPDP >> defacto make it longer than planned even if the team delivers the >> first final report for the temporary spec part. That goes beyond >> the planned 6 months and I don't think it is doable or can be >> acceptable to have an intense team like the envisioned EPDP to be >> asked to figure out the access model too. I don't know if the >> same volunteers or participants have the same background and >> knowledge on the 2 different issues. >> that should be treated by a separate team while we can argue >> about the gating questions and which can be treated by the EPDP >> team. We can suggest that the staggered phase can be started with >> some conditions TBD and not automatically. those questions and >> responses can be approved separately from the rest of other >> recommendations in the 1st final report. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le?mar. 10 juil. 2018 ??05:38, Stephanie Perrin >> > > a ?crit?: >> >> I am not very happy with the "small team" efforts.? My >> comments are being ignored (surprise surprise) and the BC/IPC >> is being permitted to do back room drafting with staff, after >> coming in at the last minute (7 minutes to our meeting time) >> with new language.? I wanted that paragraph thrown out >> wholesale.... >> >> And the questions are not all legit, and if the answers to >> the gating questions are not approved by the community, no >> matter, we go on regardless. >> >> please take a minute to think about this mess, we are being >> driven by artificial deadlines to finish and agree. >> >> steph >> >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Updated scope section document + notes from today's >> EPDP scope call >> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:08:28 +0000 >> From: Caitlin Tubergen >> >> To: Drazek, Keith >> , Susan Kawaguchi >> , >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> >> >> , Donna Austin >> >> , rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> >> , Heather Forrest >> , >> gnso-secs at icann.org >> , Paul >> McGrady (Google Docs) >> >> , >> Marika Konings >> >> >> >> >> Hi Team, >> >> Following our call today, Donna and I have been working on >> the Google Doc from this morning?s EPDP Scope call. >> >> Here are the changes we made: >> >> 1. Based on the comments from Paul and others regarding the >> difficulty of tracking comments in Google docs to the >> text, I inserted proposed text into the body of the >> document where the commenter is proposing it should go.? >> All proposed text is denoted by /italics and highlighted >> in yellow/?for ease of reference.? I?m hoping that will >> make it easier to discuss on the call by zeroing in on >> highlighted text. >> 2. I have removed references to phases and inserted >> references to gating questions. This text has been >> highlighted in yellow to note that it has been changed. >> 3. Proposed gating questions have their numbering >> highlighted in green. There may be other gating >> questions, but I highlighted the originally-proposed >> gating questions as a starting point. >> 4. Donna and I added some comments on what the group >> appeared to converge on during today?s call. >> 5. Lastly, I attached the notes from today?s call in case >> you find these helpful as you?re going through the document. >> >> Here is the link to the Google Doc: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TlcnfYuRhrCKVB28Rvb_ra6mCIWvjUDnJyJhSjbG5_Q/edit >> >> Thank you, and please let me know if there is anything I can >> do to assist in your review of the document. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Caitlin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Jul 10 22:44:16 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:44:16 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Sensitive data - GDPR Article 9 In-Reply-To: References: <10be79e0-208c-38a8-11f8-5ff9125eedb4@mail.utoronto.ca> <8efabcba-19fd-1a87-4762-931529beafc5@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: yes I have not bothered to push that because it is implicit in compliance with GDPR....and opens us up to IPC putting granular detail into the document.? Although it must be said that the push at the moment is to keep enough vague generalization in the scope that they can push access model into first place once the EPDP starts... Thanks for this input Kathy, very helpful! cheers STephanie On 2018-07-10 11:53, farzaneh badii wrote: > Kathy > > This is the fight we have started. I think they water down the problem > by calling it access to nonpublic whois data which if I am not wrong > is simply personal information of data subjects! I see Ayden has > commented on the document to that effect and I think we should add > sensitive data too. > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:46 AM Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > > Hi Rafik, Stephanie, Ayden, Martin, Tatiana, Arsene and All, > I'm worried about the absence in the EPDP draft of "sensitive > data." Sensitive data is the part of the GDPR that protects data > of those engaged in political, religious, racial, ethnic, LGBQT > activities. It's a section of the GDPR designed created to protect > people who express minority views -- the very type of > organizations who are often members of NCSG. > > Because GDPR Article 9 protects "sensitive data," and > organizations (which are often "legal entities"), it should be to > be expressly called out in EDPD draft, e.g., as "personal /and > sensitive /data." The protections GDPR Article 9 also > fundamentally implicated in the calculus of disclosure, e.g., when > ?access to registration data based on legitimate interests" [is or > is] "not outweighed by the fundamental rights of relevant data > subjects." /https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr// > > I've written a short memo (attached) for you on this topic - with > guidance from Council of Europe's Data Protection Unit. Who else > on Council should I circulate it to? Good luck with the negotiations! > Best, > Kathy > > On 7/10/2018 1:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi, >> >> thanks, Stephanie for sharing this draft. >> indeed all those gating questions are of concerns and will impact >> the EPDP progress. Adding the accredited access model to the EPDP >> defacto make it longer than planned even if the team delivers the >> first final report for the temporary spec part. That goes beyond >> the planned 6 months and I don't think it is doable or can be >> acceptable to have an intense team like the envisioned EPDP to be >> asked to figure out the access model too. I don't know if the >> same volunteers or participants have the same background and >> knowledge on the 2 different issues. >> that should be treated by a separate team while we can argue >> about the gating questions and which can be treated by the EPDP >> team. We can suggest that the staggered phase can be started with >> some conditions TBD and not automatically. those questions and >> responses can be approved separately from the rest of other >> recommendations in the 1st final report. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le?mar. 10 juil. 2018 ??05:38, Stephanie Perrin >> > > a ?crit?: >> >> I am not very happy with the "small team" efforts.? My >> comments are being ignored (surprise surprise) and the BC/IPC >> is being permitted to do back room drafting with staff, after >> coming in at the last minute (7 minutes to our meeting time) >> with new language.? I wanted that paragraph thrown out >> wholesale.... >> >> And the questions are not all legit, and if the answers to >> the gating questions are not approved by the community, no >> matter, we go on regardless. >> >> please take a minute to think about this mess, we are being >> driven by artificial deadlines to finish and agree. >> >> steph >> >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Updated scope section document + notes from today's >> EPDP scope call >> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:08:28 +0000 >> From: Caitlin Tubergen >> >> To: Drazek, Keith >> , Susan Kawaguchi >> , >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> >> >> , Donna Austin >> >> , rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> >> , Heather Forrest >> , >> gnso-secs at icann.org >> , Paul >> McGrady (Google Docs) >> >> , >> Marika Konings >> >> >> >> >> Hi Team, >> >> Following our call today, Donna and I have been working on >> the Google Doc from this morning?s EPDP Scope call. >> >> Here are the changes we made: >> >> 1. Based on the comments from Paul and others regarding the >> difficulty of tracking comments in Google docs to the >> text, I inserted proposed text into the body of the >> document where the commenter is proposing it should go.? >> All proposed text is denoted by /italics and highlighted >> in yellow/?for ease of reference.? I?m hoping that will >> make it easier to discuss on the call by zeroing in on >> highlighted text. >> 2. I have removed references to phases and inserted >> references to gating questions. This text has been >> highlighted in yellow to note that it has been changed. >> 3. Proposed gating questions have their numbering >> highlighted in green. There may be other gating >> questions, but I highlighted the originally-proposed >> gating questions as a starting point. >> 4. Donna and I added some comments on what the group >> appeared to converge on during today?s call. >> 5. Lastly, I attached the notes from today?s call in case >> you find these helpful as you?re going through the document. >> >> Here is the link to the Google Doc: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TlcnfYuRhrCKVB28Rvb_ra6mCIWvjUDnJyJhSjbG5_Q/edit >> >> Thank you, and please let me know if there is anything I can >> do to assist in your review of the document. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Caitlin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Jul 11 03:09:26 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:09:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <931fa5b1-6f20-d5e4-1cf6-2345b2a28daf@mail.utoronto.ca> Wow, ALAC is not giving its people much time to apply for this....Wonder why not till at least the 19th...? Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:51:28 -0400 From: Alan Greenberg To: NA-Discuss In light of the European General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), the ICANN Board enacted a temporary policy governing WHOIS (now know as Registration Data) effective 25 May 2018. This temporary policy must be replaced by a permanent policy within one year. To take this action, the GNSO has initiated and Expedited Policy Development Policy. The Charted for this process is expected to be approved by the GNSO on 19 July 2018, and a group convened to develop the policy will be convened soon after. Although the membership quotas of this group will not be definitively known until the charter is approved, at this point we expect that the ALAC will be given three Members and three Alternates. It is expected that Alternates may only actively participate if a Member is not available, but would be expected to be prepared to participate if needed. Members and Alternates representing the ALAC will work as a team to develop an ALAC position and strive to appropriately effect the policy effort. There will be regular consultation with the ALAC and At-Large. Since the policy must be in place by 25 May 2019, it is expected that a draft policy will be prepared in time for the ICANN63 meeting in late October 2018. *_Membership in the EPDP is expected to require up to 30 hours per week, starting immediately and at least for the first 4 months, and probably a lower but still significant commitment until mid-2018. The GNSO is also setting some very specific criteria for participation. Although the list may change, the current requirements are as follows: _* * Have sufficient and appropriate motivation, availability and expertise to participate in the substance of the work of the EPDP Team. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with the previous RDS/WHOIS policy development processes, task forces, or implementation review teams, or participation in EWG efforts; * Commit to abide by the EPDP Team Commitment Statement, and to accept the consequences of non-compliance as may be determined by the EPDP leadership or appointing group; * Commit to build consensus on issues within the scope of this EPDP; * Commit to actively participate in the activities of the EPDP on an on-going and long-term basis, for a period of no less than one-year, with the highest intensity expected in the first six to eight months; * Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the group that appoints them; * Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the EPDP Team; * Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers); * Commit to attend any provided introductory training courses, e.g., privacy, trademarks, registrar operations, DNS, etc. * Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry. _ Membership and participation will be on behalf of the ALAC and not representing personal views. _*Expressions of Interest will be accepted until 23:59 UTC on Friday, 13 July 2018.* The EoI may be found at *https://tinyurl.com/ALAC-EPDP-EoI* . If you complete the EoI more than once, the last version will be the one used. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 03:17:09 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:17:09 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data In-Reply-To: <931fa5b1-6f20-d5e4-1cf6-2345b2a28daf@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <931fa5b1-6f20-d5e4-1cf6-2345b2a28daf@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, I cannot respond to that, but for NCSG we got the draft call to be sent tomorrow Wednesday, hearing non-objection https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit Best, Rafik Le mer. 11 juil. 2018 ? 09:09, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > Wow, ALAC is not giving its people much time to apply for this....Wonder > why not till at least the 19th...? > > Stephanie > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on > Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data > Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:51:28 -0400 > From: Alan Greenberg > To: NA-Discuss > > > In light of the European General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), the > ICANN Board enacted a temporary policy governing WHOIS (now know as > Registration Data) effective 25 May 2018. This temporary policy must be > replaced by a permanent policy within one year. To take this action, the > GNSO has initiated and Expedited Policy Development Policy. The Charted for > this process is expected to be approved by the GNSO on 19 July 2018, and a > group convened to develop the policy will be convened soon after. > > Although the membership quotas of this group will not be definitively > known until the charter is approved, at this point we expect that the ALAC > will be given three Members and three Alternates. It is expected that > Alternates may only actively participate if a Member is not available, but > would be expected to be prepared to participate if needed. > > Members and Alternates representing the ALAC will work as a team to > develop an ALAC position and strive to appropriately effect the policy > effort. There will be regular consultation with the ALAC and At-Large. > > Since the policy must be in place by 25 May 2019, it is expected that a > draft policy will be prepared in time for the ICANN63 meeting in late > October 2018. > > > > *Membership in the EPDP is expected to require up to 30 hours per week, > starting immediately and at least for the first 4 months, and probably a > lower but still significant commitment until mid-2018. The GNSO is also > setting some very specific criteria for participation. Although the list > may change, the current requirements are as follows: * > > - Have sufficient and appropriate motivation, availability and > expertise to participate in the substance of the work of the EPDP Team. > Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with the > previous RDS/WHOIS policy development processes, task forces, or > implementation review teams, or participation in EWG efforts; > - Commit to abide by the EPDP Team Commitment Statement, and to accept > the consequences of non-compliance as may be determined by the EPDP > leadership or appointing group; > - Commit to build consensus on issues within the scope of this EPDP; > - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the EPDP on an > on-going and long-term basis, for a period of no less than one-year, with > the highest intensity expected in the first six to eight months; > - Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns > of individuals in the group that appoints them; > - Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the EPDP Team; > - Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves > (standards, domains and numbers); > - Commit to attend any provided introductory training courses, e.g., > privacy, trademarks, registrar operations, DNS, etc. > - Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which > ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the > Internet industry. > > > > > * Membership and participation will be on behalf of the ALAC and not > representing personal views. **Expressions of Interest will be accepted > until 23:59 UTC on Friday, 13 July 2018.* > > The EoI may be found at * https://tinyurl.com/ALAC-EPDP-EoI* > . If you complete the EoI more than > once, the last version will be the one used. > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 04:59:44 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:59:44 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Documents for EPDP Drafting Call - Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 12:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <9531932A-1191-4198-9670-BFE1870BB566@icann.org> References: <9531932A-1191-4198-9670-BFE1870BB566@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi all, you can find the versions for the drafter charter without scope section as that is still under discussion at the small team (they are making progress and Stephanie can give updates). please review the draft and share your input as councilors will attend the drafting team call this Wednesday. I am aiming to update our membership about the progress on the charter after the DT call so we can have a discussion on the matter prior to the council meeting next week. It will be also the main topic of our NCSG Policy Call next Tuesday. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Caitlin Tubergen Date: mer. 11 juil. 2018 ? 10:55 Subject: [Epdp-dt] Documents for EPDP Drafting Call - Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 12:00 UTC To: Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt Drafting Team Members: In advance of our call, please find three versions of the draft charter attached: 1. A clean version of the draft charter; 2. A ?semi-clean? version of the draft charter, which is a clean version of the charter, but highlights areas of potential disagreement or concern in the comments; 3. A redline version of the draft charter. Please note that the scope section has been removed from all of the attached versions, as that text is still under review by the small EPDP scoping team. Thank you. Kind regards, Caitlin -- *Caitlin Tubergen* Policy Senior Manager - GNSO ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office: +1 310 578 8666 Mobile: +1 310 699 5326 Email: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EPDP Draft Charter - clean - minus scope - 10 July 2018 .docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 137926 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EPDP Draft Charter - clean but items to be resolved + scope removed - 10 July 2018.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 143339 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EPDP Draft Charter - redline - 10 July 2018.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 149872 bytes Desc: not available URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 09:37:19 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 08:37:19 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data In-Reply-To: References: <931fa5b1-6f20-d5e4-1cf6-2345b2a28daf@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <726AB6B6-80A8-46AA-9C22-BE8757E3BC82@gmail.com> That 30hrs committment might be worrisome for some people to comit for full time on this. I am glad we did not include that language in our draft call. I find their EoI system something we can also do: develop a Google form which i think can help us better track candidates and make selections easy. I have not been part of any selection process here so i don?t know which tool we use. But i would personally encourage something like a google form. ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jul 11, 2018, at 2:17 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > I cannot respond to that, but for NCSG we got the draft call to be sent tomorrow Wednesday, hearing non-objection https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit > > Best, > > Rafik > >> Le mer. 11 juil. 2018 ? 09:09, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : >> Wow, ALAC is not giving its people much time to apply for this....Wonder why not till at least the 19th...? >> >> Stephanie >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data >> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:51:28 -0400 >> From: Alan Greenberg >> To: NA-Discuss >> >> In light of the European General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), the ICANN Board enacted a temporary policy governing WHOIS (now know as Registration Data) effective 25 May 2018. This temporary policy must be replaced by a permanent policy within one year. To take this action, the GNSO has initiated and Expedited Policy Development Policy. The Charted for this process is expected to be approved by the GNSO on 19 July 2018, and a group convened to develop the policy will be convened soon after. >> >> Although the membership quotas of this group will not be definitively known until the charter is approved, at this point we expect that the ALAC will be given three Members and three Alternates. It is expected that Alternates may only actively participate if a Member is not available, but would be expected to be prepared to participate if needed. >> >> Members and Alternates representing the ALAC will work as a team to develop an ALAC position and strive to appropriately effect the policy effort. There will be regular consultation with the ALAC and At-Large. >> >> Since the policy must be in place by 25 May 2019, it is expected that a draft policy will be prepared in time for the ICANN63 meeting in late October 2018. >> >> Membership in the EPDP is expected to require up to 30 hours per week, starting immediately and at least for the first 4 months, and probably a lower but still significant commitment until mid-2018. The GNSO is also setting some very specific criteria for participation. Although the list may change, the current requirements are as follows: >> >> Have sufficient and appropriate motivation, availability and expertise to participate in the substance of the work of the EPDP Team. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with the previous RDS/WHOIS policy development processes, task forces, or implementation review teams, or participation in EWG efforts; >> Commit to abide by the EPDP Team Commitment Statement, and to accept the consequences of non-compliance as may be determined by the EPDP leadership or appointing group; >> Commit to build consensus on issues within the scope of this EPDP; >> Commit to actively participate in the activities of the EPDP on an on-going and long-term basis, for a period of no less than one-year, with the highest intensity expected in the first six to eight months; >> Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the group that appoints them; >> Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the EPDP Team; >> Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers); >> Commit to attend any provided introductory training courses, e.g., privacy, trademarks, registrar operations, DNS, etc. >> Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry. >> >> Membership and participation will be on behalf of the ALAC and not representing personal views. >> >> Expressions of Interest will be accepted until 23:59 UTC on Friday, 13 July 2018. >> >> The EoI may be found at https://tinyurl.com/ALAC-EPDP-EoI. If you complete the EoI more than once, the last version will be the one used. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jul 11 10:56:21 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 03:56:21 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data In-Reply-To: <726AB6B6-80A8-46AA-9C22-BE8757E3BC82@gmail.com> References: <931fa5b1-6f20-d5e4-1cf6-2345b2a28daf@mail.utoronto.ca> <726AB6B6-80A8-46AA-9C22-BE8757E3BC82@gmail.com> Message-ID: <43Jzhf64-Y8IQpIpR1bSK5kLLamWfnoBVToGgYQC-X6f3ccya772SyoS7yNDDdUbIFLBD4wLiN2_Oz3vvnDVjJTuDFYxqgcEaPF59gH3-jM=@ferdeline.com> I do not support over-engineering this process and using a third party tool like a Google Form. The submissions through such a tool would be incredibly difficult for the selection committee to review, as Google Forms does not preserve formatting and even removes line breaks. Email is fine; we are not going to be overwhelmed with a thousand applications. I think ALAC is right to inform their members of the serious time commitment that this EPDP will entail; this is not a walk in the park. Members need to be on every call, actively intervening, and making meaningful contributions on the list and in reviewing the documents. It's not enough to just +1 someone or to paraphrase their email as if it were your own a few days later. Stressing the 30 hour a week commitment might help this all sink in. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 11 July 2018 8:37 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > That 30hrs committment might be worrisome for some people to comit for full time on this. I am glad we did not include that language in our draft call. > > I find their EoI system something we can also do: develop a Google form which i think can help us better track candidates and make selections easy. I have not been part of any selection process here so i don?t know which tool we use. But i would personally encourage something like a google form. > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Jul 11, 2018, at 2:17 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> I cannot respond to that, but for NCSG we got the draft call to be sent tomorrow Wednesday, hearing non-objection https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mer. 11 juil. 2018 ? 09:09, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : >> >>> Wow, ALAC is not giving its people much time to apply for this....Wonder why not till at least the 19th...? >>> >>> Stephanie >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data >>> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:51:28 -0400 >>> From: Alan Greenberg [](mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca) >>> >>> To: NA-Discuss [](mailto:na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org) >>> >>> In light of the European General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), the ICANN Board enacted a temporary policy governing WHOIS (now know as Registration Data) effective 25 May 2018. This temporary policy must be replaced by a permanent policy within one year. To take this action, the GNSO has initiated and Expedited Policy Development Policy. The Charted for this process is expected to be approved by the GNSO on 19 July 2018, and a group convened to develop the policy will be convened soon after. >>> >>> Although the membership quotas of this group will not be definitively known until the charter is approved, at this point we expect that the ALAC will be given three Members and three Alternates. It is expected that Alternates may only actively participate if a Member is not available, but would be expected to be prepared to participate if needed. >>> >>> Members and Alternates representing the ALAC will work as a team to develop an ALAC position and strive to appropriately effect the policy effort. There will be regular consultation with the ALAC and At-Large. >>> >>> Since the policy must be in place by 25 May 2019, it is expected that a draft policy will be prepared in time for the ICANN63 meeting in late October 2018. >>> >>> Membership in the EPDP is expected to require up to 30 hours per week, starting immediately and at least for the first 4 months, and probably a lower but still significant commitment until mid-2018. The GNSO is also setting some very specific criteria for participation. Although the list may change, the current requirements are as follows: >>> >>> - Have sufficient and appropriate motivation, availability and expertise to participate in the substance of the work of the EPDP Team. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with the previous RDS/WHOIS policy development processes, task forces, or implementation review teams, or participation in EWG efforts; >>> - Commit to abide by the EPDP Team Commitment Statement, and to accept the consequences of non-compliance as may be determined by the EPDP leadership or appointing group; >>> - Commit to build consensus on issues within the scope of this EPDP; >>> - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the EPDP on an on-going and long-term basis, for a period of no less than one-year, with the highest intensity expected in the first six to eight months; >>> - Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the group that appoints them; >>> - Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the EPDP Team; >>> - Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers); >>> - Commit to attend any provided introductory training courses, e.g., privacy, trademarks, registrar operations, DNS, etc. >>> - Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry. >>> >>> Membership and participation will be on behalf of the ALAC and not representing personal views. >>> >>> Expressions of Interest will be accepted until 23:59 UTC on Friday, 13 July 2018. >>> >>> The EoI may be found at https://tinyurl.com/ALAC-EPDP-EoI. If you complete the EoI more than once, the last version will be the one used. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 11:52:54 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:52:54 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data In-Reply-To: <43Jzhf64-Y8IQpIpR1bSK5kLLamWfnoBVToGgYQC-X6f3ccya772SyoS7yNDDdUbIFLBD4wLiN2_Oz3vvnDVjJTuDFYxqgcEaPF59gH3-jM=@ferdeline.com> References: <931fa5b1-6f20-d5e4-1cf6-2345b2a28daf@mail.utoronto.ca> <726AB6B6-80A8-46AA-9C22-BE8757E3BC82@gmail.com> <43Jzhf64-Y8IQpIpR1bSK5kLLamWfnoBVToGgYQC-X6f3ccya772SyoS7yNDDdUbIFLBD4wLiN2_Oz3vvnDVjJTuDFYxqgcEaPF59gH3-jM=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I don't have any strong opinions about the tool we will use and as I said, this will be the first time I will be reviewing applications in this group. Happy to see the way email work here and we can decide later if worth considering a third party or not. That's my point, Ayden. As for the time commitment, I think the call (as drafted) is very clear on that even if it doesn't specifically mention the number of hours that members should put in the work. I am against mentioning 30 hours in the call as this might cause more harm than good. We will need professionals (those with a day job) to send in their applications and I am sure anyone applying will have checked their workload and decide whether they have the time required to be a full member of this effort. Those are my thoughts, happy to be convinced otherwise. Regards, Arsene 2018-07-11 9:56 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline : > I do not support over-engineering this process and using a third party tool > like a Google Form. The submissions through such a tool would be incredibly > difficult for the selection committee to review, as Google Forms does not > preserve formatting and even removes line breaks. Email is fine; we are not > going to be overwhelmed with a thousand applications. > > I think ALAC is right to inform their members of the serious time commitment > that this EPDP will entail; this is not a walk in the park. Members need to > be on every call, actively intervening, and making meaningful contributions > on the list and in reviewing the documents. It's not enough to just +1 > someone or to paraphrase their email as if it were your own a few days > later. Stressing the 30 hour a week commitment might help this all sink in. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 11 July 2018 8:37 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > >> That 30hrs committment might be worrisome for some people to comit for >> full time on this. I am glad we did not include that language in our draft >> call. >> >> I find their EoI system something we can also do: develop a Google form >> which i think can help us better track candidates and make selections >> easy. I have not been part of any selection process here so i don?t know >> which tool we use. But i would personally encourage something like a >> google form. >> >> ----------------- >> Ars?ne Tungali, >> about.me/ArseneTungali >> +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >> >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >> >> On Jul 11, 2018, at 2:17 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> I cannot respond to that, but for NCSG we got the draft call to be sent >>> tomorrow Wednesday, hearing non-objection >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le mer. 11 juil. 2018 ? 09:09, Stephanie Perrin >>> a ?crit : >>> >>>> Wow, ALAC is not giving its people much time to apply for this....Wonder >>>> why not till at least the 19th...? >>>> >>>> Stephanie >>>> >>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on >>>> Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data >>>> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:51:28 -0400 >>>> From: Alan Greenberg >>>> [](mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca) >>>> >>>> To: NA-Discuss >>>> [](mailto:na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org) >>>> >>>> In light of the European General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), the >>>> ICANN Board enacted a temporary policy governing WHOIS (now know as >>>> Registration Data) effective 25 May 2018. This temporary policy must be >>>> replaced by a permanent policy within one year. To take this action, the >>>> GNSO has initiated and Expedited Policy Development Policy. The Charted >>>> for this process is expected to be approved by the GNSO on 19 July 2018, >>>> and a group convened to develop the policy will be convened soon after. >>>> >>>> Although the membership quotas of this group will not be definitively >>>> known until the charter is approved, at this point we expect that the >>>> ALAC will be given three Members and three Alternates. It is expected >>>> that Alternates may only actively participate if a Member is not >>>> available, but would be expected to be prepared to participate if >>>> needed. >>>> >>>> Members and Alternates representing the ALAC will work as a team to >>>> develop an ALAC position and strive to appropriately effect the policy >>>> effort. There will be regular consultation with the ALAC and At-Large. >>>> >>>> Since the policy must be in place by 25 May 2019, it is expected that a >>>> draft policy will be prepared in time for the ICANN63 meeting in late >>>> October 2018. >>>> >>>> Membership in the EPDP is expected to require up to 30 hours per week, >>>> starting immediately and at least for the first 4 months, and probably a >>>> lower but still significant commitment until mid-2018. The GNSO is also >>>> setting some very specific criteria for participation. Although the list >>>> may change, the current requirements are as follows: >>>> >>>> - Have sufficient and appropriate motivation, availability and expertise >>>> to participate in the substance of the work of the EPDP Team. >>>> Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with the >>>> previous RDS/WHOIS policy development processes, task forces, or >>>> implementation review teams, or participation in EWG efforts; >>>> - Commit to abide by the EPDP Team Commitment Statement, and to accept >>>> the consequences of non-compliance as may be determined by the EPDP >>>> leadership or appointing group; >>>> - Commit to build consensus on issues within the scope of this EPDP; >>>> - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the EPDP on an >>>> on-going and long-term basis, for a period of no less than one-year, >>>> with the highest intensity expected in the first six to eight months; >>>> - Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of >>>> individuals in the group that appoints them; >>>> - Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the EPDP Team; >>>> - Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves >>>> (standards, domains and numbers); >>>> - Commit to attend any provided introductory training courses, e.g., >>>> privacy, trademarks, registrar operations, DNS, etc. >>>> - Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which >>>> ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the >>>> Internet industry. >>>> >>>> Membership and participation will be on behalf of the ALAC and not >>>> representing personal views. >>>> >>>> Expressions of Interest will be accepted until 23:59 UTC on Friday, 13 >>>> July 2018. >>>> >>>> The EoI may be found at https://tinyurl.com/ALAC-EPDP-EoI. If you >>>> complete the EoI more than once, the last version will be the one used. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 11:59:43 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:59:43 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data In-Reply-To: References: <931fa5b1-6f20-d5e4-1cf6-2345b2a28daf@mail.utoronto.ca> <726AB6B6-80A8-46AA-9C22-BE8757E3BC82@gmail.com> <43Jzhf64-Y8IQpIpR1bSK5kLLamWfnoBVToGgYQC-X6f3ccya772SyoS7yNDDdUbIFLBD4wLiN2_Oz3vvnDVjJTuDFYxqgcEaPF59gH3-jM=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi all, for the applications, there are pros and cons for using an online form to get the applications. regardless of that and due to the time constraint as I am really keen to send the call today, we will go for now with people submitting to the email addresses indicated there. The application will be then compiled and packaged in a convenient format for the PC review. for the time commitment, there was some discussion in the google doc and we got wording for that, so it should be ok. Best, Rafik Le mer. 11 juil. 2018 ? 17:52, Ars?ne Tungali a ?crit : > I don't have any strong opinions about the tool we will use and as I > said, this will be the first time I will be reviewing applications in > this group. Happy to see the way email work here and we can decide > later if worth considering a third party or not. That's my point, > Ayden. > > As for the time commitment, I think the call (as drafted) is very > clear on that even if it doesn't specifically mention the number of > hours that members should put in the work. I am against mentioning 30 > hours in the call as this might cause more harm than good. We will > need professionals (those with a day job) to send in their > applications and I am sure anyone applying will have checked their > workload and decide whether they have the time required to be a full > member of this effort. > > Those are my thoughts, happy to be convinced otherwise. > > Regards, > Arsene > > 2018-07-11 9:56 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline : > > I do not support over-engineering this process and using a third party > tool > > like a Google Form. The submissions through such a tool would be > incredibly > > difficult for the selection committee to review, as Google Forms does not > > preserve formatting and even removes line breaks. Email is fine; we are > not > > going to be overwhelmed with a thousand applications. > > > > I think ALAC is right to inform their members of the serious time > commitment > > that this EPDP will entail; this is not a walk in the park. Members need > to > > be on every call, actively intervening, and making meaningful > contributions > > on the list and in reviewing the documents. It's not enough to just +1 > > someone or to paraphrase their email as if it were your own a few days > > later. Stressing the 30 hour a week commitment might help this all sink > in. > > > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > On 11 July 2018 8:37 AM, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > > > >> That 30hrs committment might be worrisome for some people to comit for > >> full time on this. I am glad we did not include that language in our > draft > >> call. > >> > >> I find their EoI system something we can also do: develop a Google form > >> which i think can help us better track candidates and make selections > >> easy. I have not been part of any selection process here so i don?t know > >> which tool we use. But i would personally encourage something like a > >> google form. > >> > >> ----------------- > >> Ars?ne Tungali, > >> about.me/ArseneTungali > >> +243 993810967 > >> GPG: 523644A0 > >> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > >> > >> On Jul 11, 2018, at 2:17 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Stephanie, > >>> > >>> I cannot respond to that, but for NCSG we got the draft call to be sent > >>> tomorrow Wednesday, hearing non-objection > >>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> Le mer. 11 juil. 2018 ? 09:09, Stephanie Perrin > >>> a ?crit : > >>> > >>>> Wow, ALAC is not giving its people much time to apply for > this....Wonder > >>>> why not till at least the 19th...? > >>>> > >>>> Stephanie > >>>> > >>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- > >>>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on > >>>> Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data > >>>> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:51:28 -0400 > >>>> From: Alan Greenberg > >>>> [](mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca) > >>>> > >>>> To: NA-Discuss > >>>> [](mailto: > na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org) > >>>> > >>>> In light of the European General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), > the > >>>> ICANN Board enacted a temporary policy governing WHOIS (now know as > >>>> Registration Data) effective 25 May 2018. This temporary policy must > be > >>>> replaced by a permanent policy within one year. To take this action, > the > >>>> GNSO has initiated and Expedited Policy Development Policy. The > Charted > >>>> for this process is expected to be approved by the GNSO on 19 July > 2018, > >>>> and a group convened to develop the policy will be convened soon > after. > >>>> > >>>> Although the membership quotas of this group will not be definitively > >>>> known until the charter is approved, at this point we expect that the > >>>> ALAC will be given three Members and three Alternates. It is expected > >>>> that Alternates may only actively participate if a Member is not > >>>> available, but would be expected to be prepared to participate if > >>>> needed. > >>>> > >>>> Members and Alternates representing the ALAC will work as a team to > >>>> develop an ALAC position and strive to appropriately effect the policy > >>>> effort. There will be regular consultation with the ALAC and At-Large. > >>>> > >>>> Since the policy must be in place by 25 May 2019, it is expected that > a > >>>> draft policy will be prepared in time for the ICANN63 meeting in late > >>>> October 2018. > >>>> > >>>> Membership in the EPDP is expected to require up to 30 hours per week, > >>>> starting immediately and at least for the first 4 months, and > probably a > >>>> lower but still significant commitment until mid-2018. The GNSO is > also > >>>> setting some very specific criteria for participation. Although the > list > >>>> may change, the current requirements are as follows: > >>>> > >>>> - Have sufficient and appropriate motivation, availability and > expertise > >>>> to participate in the substance of the work of the EPDP Team. > >>>> Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with the > >>>> previous RDS/WHOIS policy development processes, task forces, or > >>>> implementation review teams, or participation in EWG efforts; > >>>> - Commit to abide by the EPDP Team Commitment Statement, and to accept > >>>> the consequences of non-compliance as may be determined by the EPDP > >>>> leadership or appointing group; > >>>> - Commit to build consensus on issues within the scope of this EPDP; > >>>> - Commit to actively participate in the activities of the EPDP on an > >>>> on-going and long-term basis, for a period of no less than one-year, > >>>> with the highest intensity expected in the first six to eight months; > >>>> - Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns > of > >>>> individuals in the group that appoints them; > >>>> - Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the EPDP Team; > >>>> - Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves > >>>> (standards, domains and numbers); > >>>> - Commit to attend any provided introductory training courses, e.g., > >>>> privacy, trademarks, registrar operations, DNS, etc. > >>>> - Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which > >>>> ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the > >>>> Internet industry. > >>>> > >>>> Membership and participation will be on behalf of the ALAC and not > >>>> representing personal views. > >>>> > >>>> Expressions of Interest will be accepted until 23:59 UTC on Friday, 13 > >>>> July 2018. > >>>> > >>>> The EoI may be found at https://tinyurl.com/ALAC-EPDP-EoI. If you > >>>> complete the EoI more than once, the last version will be the one > used. > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -- > ------------------------ > **Ars?ne Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa > Forum > * > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > < > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > < > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors > > > & Mexico > < > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors > >) > - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger > - ICANN's GNSO Council > Member. AFRINIC Fellow > ( > Mauritius > >)* > - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet > Freedom. > > Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English > ) and (French > ) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 14:30:52 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:30:52 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP members consulting with membership Message-ID: Hi, Just wanted to bring this up for consideration and I request this to be seriously discussed. It is well known and agreed that ePDP members will be advancing and representing the positions of their appointed groups, not their personal views. This has been agreed upon based on the nature of this effort. NCSG reps will, therefore, be representing NCSG views in the WG, which is different from other PDPs though that would be ideal and i am sure our members have been doing their best to best represent us. For the case of the ePDP, though this looks straightforward, I have been wondering how we can ensure this is what really happens and what are the tools that we will put in place to ensure this is the case. I think it is time we develop some ways to track this and agree on what we need to do in an event one of our reps is not reflecting our views/values or is not consulting with us. I don't think we should "simply trust our representatives". We haven't discussed any event where a member may lose their membership to the WG and how this may happen. Maybe this is somewhere in the OP or WG Guidelines or somewhere so i will appreciate being pointed out to any existing resources dealing with this specific case. Thank you, Arsene ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 14:50:01 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 20:50:01 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP members consulting with membership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, > Just wanted to bring this up for consideration and I request this to be > seriously discussed. It is well known and agreed that ePDP members will be > advancing and representing the positions of their appointed groups, not > their personal views. This has been agreed upon based on the nature of this > effort. > that is indicated in the call for volunteers so everyone understand what they are commiting to. > > NCSG reps will, therefore, be representing NCSG views in the WG, which is > different from other PDPs though that would be ideal and i am sure our > members have been doing their best to best represent us. > > For the case of the ePDP, though this looks straightforward, I have been > wondering how we can ensure this is what really happens and what are the > tools that we will put in place to ensure this is the case. I think it is > time we develop some ways to track this and agree on what we need to do in > an event one of our reps is not reflecting our views/values or is not > consulting with us. I don't think we should "simply trust our > representatives". > > before thinking about the worse case, we are working on coordinating NCSG positions and giving input to our appointed representatives ( again indicated in the call for volunteers as matter of expectation) and they are expected to consult us (ditto). We as PC will also monitor the discussion in the EPDP team via the updates, listening to audiocast of the calls or checking any other useful reporting. I also suggested to have a specific regular EPDP related call to discuss any related topic. any other channel or mechanism is welcome without putting more pressure or burden . We haven't discussed any event where a member may lose their membership to > the WG and how this may happen. Maybe this is somewhere in the OP or WG > Guidelines or somewhere so i will appreciate being pointed out to any > existing resources dealing with this specific case. > > not sure to understand this case since it is the NCSG like other groups which appoints or replaces its own representatives. unless you mean the representatives was restrircted or something similar by the EPDP team chair? if a representative is unable for any reason to continue, we got alternate who are supposed to be ready to step in at any time. We are also there to avoid things from escalating and will give guidance to our representatives. we need be mindful to need overengineer here. We are going to have the channels for communication, ensure giving regular input to and request updates from representatives so they can be aware. but more important we as obsevers have follow closely the discussion in the EPDP team. We are setting clear expectations in the call for volunteers for the representatives and they are also going to sign the statement. when a particular case happen that needs intervention, we can deal with it at that time. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jul 11 14:50:51 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 07:50:51 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP members consulting with membership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Arsene, What is your proposed solution? How would you suggest this concern that you want "seriously discussed" (thus implying we would not ordinarily give anything any serious consideration) be resolved? It?s easy to flag real or perceived problems ? but do you have any solutions? Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 13:30, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > Hi, > > Just wanted to bring this up for consideration and I request this to be seriously discussed. It is well known and agreed that ePDP members will be advancing and representing the positions of their appointed groups, not their personal views. This has been agreed upon based on the nature of this effort. > > NCSG reps will, therefore, be representing NCSG views in the WG, which is different from other PDPs though that would be ideal and i am sure our members have been doing their best to best represent us. > > For the case of the ePDP, though this looks straightforward, I have been wondering how we can ensure this is what really happens and what are the tools that we will put in place to ensure this is the case. I think it is time we develop some ways to track this and agree on what we need to do in an event one of our reps is not reflecting our views/values or is not consulting with us. I don't think we should "simply trust our representatives". > > We haven't discussed any event where a member may lose their membership to the WG and how this may happen. Maybe this is somewhere in the OP or WG Guidelines or somewhere so i will appreciate being pointed out to any existing resources dealing with this specific case. > > Thank you, > > Arsene > ------------------------ > *[Ars?ne Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* > Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org), > CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](https://www.smart-kitoko.com/), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.com) > Tel: +243 993810967 > > GPG: 523644A0 > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > [2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors) & [Mexico](http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors)) - [AFRISIG 2016](http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/) - [Blogger](http://tungali.blogspot.com)- ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/)- Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242)) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Jul 11 15:23:24 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 08:23:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data In-Reply-To: <726AB6B6-80A8-46AA-9C22-BE8757E3BC82@gmail.com> References: <931fa5b1-6f20-d5e4-1cf6-2345b2a28daf@mail.utoronto.ca> <726AB6B6-80A8-46AA-9C22-BE8757E3BC82@gmail.com> Message-ID: I would strongly urge including the 30 hours estimate.? People need to know how much work this is.? I do not want to carry the entire load, to be blunt.? Don't let anyone join who is not prepared to commit the time. Stephanie Perrin On 2018-07-11 02:37, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > That 30hrs committment might be worrisome for some people to comit for > full time on this. I am glad we did not include that language in our > draft call. > > I find their EoI system something we can also do: develop a Google > form which i think can help us better track candidates and make > selections easy. I have not been part of any selection process here so > i don?t know which tool we use. But i would personally encourage > something like a google form. > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Jul 11, 2018, at 2:17 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> I cannot respond to that, but for NCSG we got the draft call to be >> sent tomorrow Wednesday, hearing non-objection >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le?mer. 11 juil. 2018 ??09:09, Stephanie Perrin >> > > a ?crit?: >> >> Wow, ALAC is not giving its people much time to apply for >> this....Wonder why not till at least the 19th...? >> >> Stephanie >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on >> Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data >> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:51:28 -0400 >> From: Alan Greenberg >> >> To: NA-Discuss >> >> >> >> >> In light of the European General Data Protection Regulations >> (GDPR), the ICANN Board enacted a temporary policy governing >> WHOIS (now know as Registration Data) effective 25 May 2018. This >> temporary policy must be replaced by a permanent policy within >> one year. To take this action, the GNSO has initiated and >> Expedited Policy Development Policy. The Charted for this process >> is expected to be approved by the GNSO on 19 July 2018, and a >> group convened to develop the policy will be convened soon after. >> >> Although the membership quotas of this group will not be >> definitively known until the charter is approved, at this point >> we expect that the ALAC will be given three Members and three >> Alternates. It is expected that Alternates may only actively >> participate if a Member is not available, but would be expected >> to be prepared to participate if needed. >> >> Members and Alternates representing the ALAC will work as a team >> to develop an ALAC position and strive to appropriately effect >> the policy effort. There will be regular consultation with the >> ALAC and At-Large. >> >> Since the policy must be in place by 25 May 2019, it is expected >> that a draft policy will be prepared in time for the ICANN63 >> meeting in late October 2018. >> >> *_Membership in the EPDP is expected to require up to 30 hours >> per week, starting immediately and at least for the first 4 >> months, and probably a lower but still significant commitment >> until mid-2018. The GNSO is also setting some very specific >> criteria for participation. Although the list may change, the >> current requirements are as follows: >> >> _* >> >> * Have sufficient and appropriate motivation, availability and >> expertise to participate in the substance of the work of the >> EPDP Team. Appropriate experience could, for example, include >> experience with the previous RDS/WHOIS policy development >> processes, task forces, or implementation review teams, or >> participation in EWG efforts; >> * Commit to abide by the EPDP Team Commitment Statement, and to >> accept the consequences of non-compliance as may be >> determined by the EPDP leadership or appointing group; >> * Commit to build consensus on issues within the scope of this >> EPDP; >> * Commit to actively participate in the activities of the EPDP >> on an on-going and long-term basis, for a period of no less >> than one-year, with the highest intensity expected in the >> first six to eight months; >> * Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and >> concerns of individuals in the group that appoints them; >> * Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the EPDP >> Team; >> * Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN >> serves (standards, domains and numbers); >> * Commit to attend any provided introductory training courses, >> e.g., privacy, trademarks, registrar operations, DNS, etc. >> * Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in >> which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other >> aspects of the Internet industry. >> >> _ >> Membership and participation will be on behalf of the ALAC and >> not representing personal views. >> >> _*Expressions of Interest will be accepted until 23:59 UTC on >> Friday, 13 July 2018.* >> >> The EoI may be found at *https://tinyurl.com/ALAC-EPDP-EoI* >> . If you complete the EoI more >> than once, the last version will be the one used. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jul 11 22:30:50 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:30:50 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public comment In-Reply-To: References: <0236C85F-94AB-45ED-8FC7-017BAB7191A3@icann.org> Message-ID: It seems we have a 310-page initial report to review... Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 11 July 2018 6:53 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > The Initial Report of ICANN?s New GTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group has been published for public comment (until 5 Sept). Please see details below. > > Thanks, > Robin > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Emily Barabas >> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public comment >> Date: July 3, 2018 at 12:13:19 PM PDT >> To: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" >> >> Dear Working Group members, >> >> The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG?s Initial Report has been published for public comment. Please find the details here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-2018-07-03-en. >> >> Please help in spreading the word about this public comment opportunity and encourage your communities to respond. The public comment will remain open until 5 September. >> >> You can also find a link to the public comment forum and the Initial Report on the SubPro wiki workspace homepage: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw. >> >> Kind regards, >> Emily >> >> Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist >> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Jul 11 22:42:12 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:42:12 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public comment In-Reply-To: References: <0236C85F-94AB-45ED-8FC7-017BAB7191A3@icann.org> Message-ID: best put the coffee on... Who volunteered for this one? cheers Steph On 2018-07-11 15:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > It seems we have a 310-page initial report to review... > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 11 July 2018 6:53 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > >> The Initial Report of ICANN?s New GTLD Subsequent Procedures Working >> Group has been published for public comment (until 5 Sept). ?Please >> see details below. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> *From: *Emily Barabas >> > >>> *Subject: **[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public >>> comment* >>> *Date: *July 3, 2018 at 12:13:19 PM PDT >>> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org " >>> > >>> >>> Dear Working Group members, >>> >>> The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG?s Initial Report has been >>> published for public comment. Please find the details >>> here:https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-2018-07-03-en. >>> >>> Please help in spreading the word about this public comment >>> opportunity and encourage your communities to respond. The public >>> comment will remain open until 5 September. >>> >>> You can also find a link to the public comment forum and the Initial >>> Report on the SubPro wiki workspace >>> homepage:https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Emily >>> >>> *Emily Barabas*|?Senior Policy Specialist >>> *ICANN*| Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>> Email:emily.barabas at icann.org | >>> Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 22:52:08 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:52:08 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public comment In-Reply-To: References: <0236C85F-94AB-45ED-8FC7-017BAB7191A3@icann.org> Message-ID: Bruna and I think Ines have been following this. I think more of WT5. Can we ask them to start from somewhere? Farzaneh On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:42 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > best put the coffee on... > > Who volunteered for this one? > > cheers Steph > On 2018-07-11 15:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > It seems we have a 310-page initial report to review... > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 11 July 2018 6:53 PM, Robin Gross > wrote: > > The Initial Report of ICANN?s New GTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group > has been published for public comment (until 5 Sept). Please see details > below. > > Thanks, > Robin > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Emily Barabas > *Subject: **[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public comment* > *Date: *July 3, 2018 at 12:13:19 PM PDT > *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" > > Dear Working Group members, > > The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG?s Initial Report has been > published for public comment. Please find the details here: > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-2018-07-03-en > . > > Please help in spreading the word about this public comment opportunity > and encourage your communities to respond. The public comment will remain > open until 5 September. > > You can also find a link to the public comment forum and the Initial > Report on the SubPro wiki workspace homepage: > https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw. > > Kind regards, > Emily > > *Emily Barabas *| Senior Policy Specialist > *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Jul 11 22:58:19 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:58:19 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public comment In-Reply-To: References: <0236C85F-94AB-45ED-8FC7-017BAB7191A3@icann.org> Message-ID: I have not followed at all, but it is super important, and folks tend to be on holidays in August. Plus some of us will be preoccupied with EPDP.... I will read it, once I get some other crap done....but cannot promise content. working on a blog on a access model issues at the moment, which is needed. cheers Steph On 2018-07-11 15:52, farzaneh badii wrote: > Bruna and I think Ines have been following this. I think more of WT5. > Can we ask them to start from somewhere? > > Farzaneh > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:42 PM Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > best put the coffee on... > > Who volunteered for this one? > > cheers Steph > > On 2018-07-11 15:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> It seems we have a 310-page initial report to review... >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 11 July 2018 6:53 PM, Robin Gross >> wrote: >> >>> The Initial Report of ICANN?s New GTLD Subsequent Procedures >>> Working Group has been published for public comment (until 5 >>> Sept).? Please see details below. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin >>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> *From: *Emily Barabas >>> > >>>> *Subject: **[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for >>>> public comment* >>>> *Date: *July 3, 2018 at 12:13:19 PM PDT >>>> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org >>>> " >>> > >>>> >>>> Dear Working Group members, >>>> >>>> The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG?s Initial Report has >>>> been published for public comment. Please find the details >>>> here:https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-2018-07-03-en. >>>> >>>> Please help in spreading the word about this public comment >>>> opportunity and encourage your communities to respond. The >>>> public comment will remain open until 5 September. >>>> >>>> You can also find a link to the public comment forum and the >>>> Initial Report on the SubPro wiki workspace >>>> homepage:https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Emily >>>> >>>> *Emily Barabas*|?Senior Policy Specialist >>>> *ICANN*| Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>>> Email:emily.barabas at icann.org | >>>> Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Jul 11 22:58:46 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:58:46 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public comment In-Reply-To: References: <0236C85F-94AB-45ED-8FC7-017BAB7191A3@icann.org> Message-ID: I recommend that we create an outline on this one first -- probably something in Google Doc. There are literally hundreds of questions being asked in dozens of areas. We've probably all been following some aspect of the discussion. There may be points of agreement, and disagreement. How about a month to consider and develop the outlines?? If everyone contributes... we should have something comprehensive and can fairly easily draft from there. Best, Kathy p.s. I was participating in subgroup 2/B which has produced a lot of questions! On 7/11/2018 3:52 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Bruna and I think Ines have been following this. I think more of WT5. > Can we ask them to start from somewhere? > > Farzaneh > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:42 PM Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > best put the coffee on... > > Who volunteered for this one? > > cheers Steph > > On 2018-07-11 15:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> It seems we have a 310-page initial report to review... >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 11 July 2018 6:53 PM, Robin Gross >> wrote: >> >>> The Initial Report of ICANN?s New GTLD Subsequent Procedures >>> Working Group has been published for public comment (until 5 >>> Sept).? Please see details below. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin >>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> *From: *Emily Barabas >>> > >>>> *Subject: **[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for >>>> public comment* >>>> *Date: *July 3, 2018 at 12:13:19 PM PDT >>>> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org >>>> " >>> > >>>> >>>> Dear Working Group members, >>>> >>>> The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG?s Initial Report has >>>> been published for public comment. Please find the details >>>> here:https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-2018-07-03-en. >>>> >>>> Please help in spreading the word about this public comment >>>> opportunity and encourage your communities to respond. The >>>> public comment will remain open until 5 September. >>>> >>>> You can also find a link to the public comment forum and the >>>> Initial Report on the SubPro wiki workspace >>>> homepage:https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Emily >>>> >>>> *Emily Barabas*|?Senior Policy Specialist >>>> *ICANN*| Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>>> Email:emily.barabas at icann.org | >>>> Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Jul 11 23:00:34 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:00:34 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public comment In-Reply-To: References: <0236C85F-94AB-45ED-8FC7-017BAB7191A3@icann.org> Message-ID: <2168906e-a38e-9333-828a-ad1f0966382c@mail.utoronto.ca> Sounds like a good plan, Kathy! SP On 2018-07-11 15:58, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > I recommend that we create an outline on this one first -- probably > something in Google Doc. There are literally hundreds of questions > being asked in dozens of areas. We've probably all been following some > aspect of the discussion. There may be points of agreement, and > disagreement. > > How about a month to consider and develop the outlines?? If everyone > contributes... we should have something comprehensive and can fairly > easily draft from there. > > Best, Kathy > > p.s. I was participating in subgroup 2/B which has produced a lot of > questions! > > > > On 7/11/2018 3:52 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> Bruna and I think Ines have been following this. I think more of WT5. >> Can we ask them to start from somewhere? >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:42 PM Stephanie Perrin >> > > wrote: >> >> best put the coffee on... >> >> Who volunteered for this one? >> >> cheers Steph >> >> On 2018-07-11 15:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> It seems we have a 310-page initial report to review... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 11 July 2018 6:53 PM, Robin Gross >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The Initial Report of ICANN?s New GTLD Subsequent Procedures >>>> Working Group has been published for public comment (until 5 >>>> Sept).? Please see details below. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>> *From: *Emily Barabas >>>> > >>>>> *Subject: **[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for >>>>> public comment* >>>>> *Date: *July 3, 2018 at 12:13:19 PM PDT >>>>> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org >>>>> " >>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Dear Working Group members, >>>>> >>>>> The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG?s Initial Report has >>>>> been published for public comment. Please find the details >>>>> here:https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-2018-07-03-en. >>>>> >>>>> Please help in spreading the word about this public comment >>>>> opportunity and encourage your communities to respond. The >>>>> public comment will remain open until 5 September. >>>>> >>>>> You can also find a link to the public comment forum and the >>>>> Initial Report on the SubPro wiki workspace >>>>> homepage:https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> Emily >>>>> >>>>> *Emily Barabas*|?Senior Policy Specialist >>>>> *ICANN*| Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>>>> Email:emily.barabas at icann.org >>>>> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jul 11 23:02:57 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:02:57 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public comment In-Reply-To: <2168906e-a38e-9333-828a-ad1f0966382c@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <0236C85F-94AB-45ED-8FC7-017BAB7191A3@icann.org> <2168906e-a38e-9333-828a-ad1f0966382c@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Would you be comfortable being the penholder for this comment, Kathy? You won't have to do all the work -- but it would be good to have someone with knowledge of this issue steering the ship forward, and making sure the comment is taking shape... Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 11 July 2018 10:00 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Sounds like a good plan, Kathy! > > SP > > On 2018-07-11 15:58, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > >> I recommend that we create an outline on this one first -- probably something in Google Doc. There are literally hundreds of questions being asked in dozens of areas. We've probably all been following some aspect of the discussion. There may be points of agreement, and disagreement. >> >> How about a month to consider and develop the outlines? If everyone contributes... we should have something comprehensive and can fairly easily draft from there. >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> p.s. I was participating in subgroup 2/B which has produced a lot of questions! >> >> On 7/11/2018 3:52 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> Bruna and I think Ines have been following this. I think more of WT5. Can we ask them to start from somewhere? >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:42 PM Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>>> best put the coffee on... >>>> >>>> Who volunteered for this one? >>>> >>>> cheers Steph >>>> >>>> On 2018-07-11 15:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> It seems we have a 310-page initial report to review... >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 11 July 2018 6:53 PM, Robin Gross [](mailto:robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The Initial Report of ICANN?s New GTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group has been published for public comment (until 5 Sept). Please see details below. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Robin >>>>>> >>>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Emily Barabas >>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public comment >>>>>>> Date: July 3, 2018 at 12:13:19 PM PDT >>>>>>> To: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Working Group members, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG?s Initial Report has been published for public comment. Please find the details here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-2018-07-03-en. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please help in spreading the word about this public comment opportunity and encourage your communities to respond. The public comment will remain open until 5 September. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can also find a link to the public comment forum and the Initial Report on the SubPro wiki workspace homepage: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> Emily >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist >>>>>>> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>>>>>> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >>>>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 23:05:50 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:05:50 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public comment In-Reply-To: References: <0236C85F-94AB-45ED-8FC7-017BAB7191A3@icann.org> Message-ID: I really think the legwork of this could be good to be done by people that are active or at least in their profile they say they are active. Let's see how we can encourage them. So they can work on the outline and update us and remind us... Outline is a good idea On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:59 PM Kathy Kleiman wrote: > I recommend that we create an outline on this one first -- probably > something in Google Doc. There are literally hundreds of questions being > asked in dozens of areas. We've probably all been following some aspect of > the discussion. There may be points of agreement, and disagreement. > > How about a month to consider and develop the outlines? If everyone > contributes... we should have something comprehensive and can fairly easily > draft from there. > > Best, Kathy > > p.s. I was participating in subgroup 2/B which has produced a lot of > questions! > > > > On 7/11/2018 3:52 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Bruna and I think Ines have been following this. I think more of WT5. Can > we ask them to start from somewhere? > > Farzaneh > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:42 PM Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> best put the coffee on... >> >> Who volunteered for this one? >> >> cheers Steph >> On 2018-07-11 15:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> It seems we have a 310-page initial report to review... >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 11 July 2018 6:53 PM, Robin Gross >> wrote: >> >> The Initial Report of ICANN?s New GTLD Subsequent Procedures Working >> Group has been published for public comment (until 5 Sept). Please see >> details below. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *Emily Barabas >> *Subject: **[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public >> comment* >> *Date: *July 3, 2018 at 12:13:19 PM PDT >> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" >> >> Dear Working Group members, >> >> The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG?s Initial Report has been >> published for public comment. Please find the details here: >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-2018-07-03-en >> . >> >> Please help in spreading the word about this public comment opportunity >> and encourage your communities to respond. The public comment will remain >> open until 5 September. >> >> You can also find a link to the public comment forum and the Initial >> Report on the SubPro wiki workspace homepage: >> https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw. >> >> Kind regards, >> Emily >> >> *Emily Barabas *| Senior Policy Specialist >> *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 00:04:27 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:04:27 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public comment In-Reply-To: References: <0236C85F-94AB-45ED-8FC7-017BAB7191A3@icann.org> Message-ID: hi, the report and call volunteers were shared in NCSG list the 4th July. Bruna and Elsa volunteered for this comment, the former as pendholder (as always you can find names here https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018). others NCSG involved members are Robin and Bruna are participating in the Subpro (WT1 to WT5) as far as I know and I didn't recall others giving updates. the outline idea looks good and the WG. In fact, the WG added 3 days ago a summary of recommendations, options and questions in excel format as requested by several people https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-initial-annex-c-09jul18-en.xlsx . I think that corresponds to the outline. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 12 juil. 2018 ? 05:06, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > I really think the legwork of this could be good to be done by people that > are active or at least in their profile they say they are active. Let's see > how we can encourage them. So they can work on the outline and update us > and remind us... Outline is a good idea > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:59 PM Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > >> I recommend that we create an outline on this one first -- probably >> something in Google Doc. There are literally hundreds of questions being >> asked in dozens of areas. We've probably all been following some aspect of >> the discussion. There may be points of agreement, and disagreement. >> >> How about a month to consider and develop the outlines? If everyone >> contributes... we should have something comprehensive and can fairly easily >> draft from there. >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> p.s. I was participating in subgroup 2/B which has produced a lot of >> questions! >> >> >> >> On 7/11/2018 3:52 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Bruna and I think Ines have been following this. I think more of WT5. Can >> we ask them to start from somewhere? >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:42 PM Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >>> best put the coffee on... >>> >>> Who volunteered for this one? >>> >>> cheers Steph >>> On 2018-07-11 15:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> It seems we have a 310-page initial report to review... >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 11 July 2018 6:53 PM, Robin Gross >>> wrote: >>> >>> The Initial Report of ICANN?s New GTLD Subsequent Procedures Working >>> Group has been published for public comment (until 5 Sept). Please see >>> details below. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> *From: *Emily Barabas >>> *Subject: **[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public >>> comment* >>> *Date: *July 3, 2018 at 12:13:19 PM PDT >>> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" >>> >>> Dear Working Group members, >>> >>> The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG?s Initial Report has been >>> published for public comment. Please find the details here: >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-2018-07-03-en >>> . >>> >>> Please help in spreading the word about this public comment opportunity >>> and encourage your communities to respond. The public comment will remain >>> open until 5 September. >>> >>> You can also find a link to the public comment forum and the Initial >>> Report on the SubPro wiki workspace homepage: >>> https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Emily >>> >>> *Emily Barabas *| Senior Policy Specialist >>> *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 03:02:52 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 09:02:52 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process Message-ID: Hi all, I accepted most the changes for the draft call https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit?ts=5b45fde2 . We shall receive soon the letter from GNSO about the appointment to EPDP team. I will update the draft with the latest relevant text (statement of participation and requirements) and other relevant annexes from that call. Due to the time constraint, I will send the call this Thursday. there may some text that can be tweaked but I think we shouldn't spend more time doing that. We cannot change the deadline as the date for sending names around the 20th. We should encourage candidates to apply but please be careful and indicate that doesn't mean automatic selection. Selection: There is a matrix for review and ranking in the document, please check it and let's discuss how we will manage the selection: - Review: we will do individually the ranking based on the compiled applications (Maryam and I will work on the format for the matrix to get everyone input and including applicants info) - Deliberations: last time for an appointment to SSC, the deliberations didn't happen in the PC list but with conference calls and private email thread. I don't have any strong preference (public or private) but in term of transparency, we can make the list of applicants public, taking notes of the process. Please share your thought on the matter. I think we will have at least one conference call, to be recorded and transcribed and so available when needed. - Decision-making: we work with rough consensus and we need to have a strong support for each representative to be appointed. The ranking will help us partly in splitting between members and alternates (it also depends on people choice). this temporary process will be documented and updated. All those elements will be helpful as input for general PC procedures related to the appointment (Farzaneh and me working on updating the draft to be shared soon). later on, we can work on preparing for EPDP itself, more on substance, and how we will liaise with the members. Several suggestions are made and indicated in the call for volunteers itself. NCSG PC has a role in term of support and input including regular EPDP related calls, giving guidance to representatives and getting regular updates. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Thu Jul 12 05:13:01 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 22:13:01 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for public comment In-Reply-To: References: <0236C85F-94AB-45ED-8FC7-017BAB7191A3@icann.org> <2168906e-a38e-9333-828a-ad1f0966382c@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <198c87ee-0880-f181-c7ee-66d192e30547@kathykleiman.com> Hi Ayden, Tx for asking. I would be happy to assist the penholder(s) as a member of the drafting team. Best, Kathy On 7/11/2018 4:02 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Would you be comfortable being the penholder for this comment, Kathy? > You won't have to do all the work -- but it would be good to have > someone with knowledge of this issue steering the ship forward, and > making sure the comment is taking shape... > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 11 July 2018 10:00 PM, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: > >> Sounds like a good plan, Kathy! >> >> SP >> >> On 2018-07-11 15:58, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>> >>> I recommend that we create an outline on this one first -- probably >>> something in Google Doc. There are literally hundreds of questions >>> being asked in dozens of areas. We've probably all been following >>> some aspect of the discussion. There may be points of agreement, and >>> disagreement. >>> >>> How about a month to consider and develop the outlines?? If everyone >>> contributes... we should have something comprehensive and can fairly >>> easily draft from there. >>> >>> Best, Kathy >>> >>> p.s. I was participating in subgroup 2/B which has produced a lot of >>> questions! >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/11/2018 3:52 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> Bruna and I think Ines have been following this. I think more of >>>> WT5. Can we ask them to start from somewhere? >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:42 PM Stephanie Perrin >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> best put the coffee on... >>>> >>>> Who volunteered for this one? >>>> >>>> cheers Steph >>>> >>>> On 2018-07-11 15:30, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> It seems we have a 310-page initial report to review... >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 11 July 2018 6:53 PM, Robin Gross >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The Initial Report of ICANN?s New GTLD Subsequent Procedures >>>>>> Working Group has been published for public comment (until 5 >>>>>> Sept). Please see details below. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Robin >>>>>> >>>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From: *Emily Barabas >>>>>> > >>>>>>> *Subject: **[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Initial Report published for >>>>>>> public comment* >>>>>>> *Date: *July 3, 2018 at 12:13:19 PM PDT >>>>>>> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org >>>>>>> " >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Working Group members, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG?s Initial Report >>>>>>> has been published for public comment. Please find the >>>>>>> details >>>>>>> here:https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-2018-07-03-en. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please help in spreading the word about this public comment >>>>>>> opportunity and encourage your communities to respond. The >>>>>>> public comment will remain open until 5 September. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can also find a link to the public comment forum and the >>>>>>> Initial Report on the SubPro wiki workspace >>>>>>> homepage:https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> Emily >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Emily Barabas*|?Senior Policy Specialist >>>>>>> *ICANN*| Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>>>>>> Email:emily.barabas at icann.org >>>>>>> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >>>>>>> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 08:27:46 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 07:27:46 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP members consulting with membership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafik, This is helpful and thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and to mention that most of my ? worries ? are covered by the call for volunteers. I don?t have any particular or specific concerns nor do I doubt on our capacity to select the best people but just wanted to bring this out there for consideration. I look forward to hearing others thoughts and am expecting anyone who has nothing to contribute with to simply stay quiet as this is also helpful. I understand this is work in progress and i am sure we will come up, together, with some guidelines that will inform our support to our representatives. Regards, Arsene ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jul 11, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > >> >> Just wanted to bring this up for consideration and I request this to be seriously discussed. It is well known and agreed that ePDP members will be advancing and representing the positions of their appointed groups, not their personal views. This has been agreed upon based on the nature of this effort. > > that is indicated in the call for volunteers so everyone understand what they are commiting to. > >> >> NCSG reps will, therefore, be representing NCSG views in the WG, which is different from other PDPs though that would be ideal and i am sure our members have been doing their best to best represent us. >> >> For the case of the ePDP, though this looks straightforward, I have been wondering how we can ensure this is what really happens and what are the tools that we will put in place to ensure this is the case. I think it is time we develop some ways to track this and agree on what we need to do in an event one of our reps is not reflecting our views/values or is not consulting with us. I don't think we should "simply trust our representatives". >> > > before thinking about the worse case, we are working on coordinating NCSG positions and giving input to our appointed representatives ( again indicated in the call for volunteers as matter of expectation) and they are expected to consult us (ditto). We as PC will also monitor the discussion in the EPDP team via the updates, listening to audiocast of the calls or checking any other useful reporting. I also suggested to have a specific regular EPDP related call to discuss any related topic. any other channel or mechanism is welcome without putting more pressure or burden . > > >> We haven't discussed any event where a member may lose their membership to the WG and how this may happen. Maybe this is somewhere in the OP or WG Guidelines or somewhere so i will appreciate being pointed out to any existing resources dealing with this specific case. >> > > not sure to understand this case since it is the NCSG like other groups which appoints or replaces its own representatives. unless you mean the representatives was restrircted or something similar by the EPDP team chair? if a representative is unable for any reason to continue, we got alternate who are supposed to be ready to step in at any time. We are also there to avoid things from escalating and will give guidance to our representatives. > > we need be mindful to need overengineer here. We are going to have the channels for communication, ensure giving regular input to and request updates from representatives so they can be aware. but more important we as obsevers have follow closely the discussion in the EPDP team. We are setting clear expectations in the call for volunteers for the representatives and they are also going to sign the statement. > > when a particular case happen that needs intervention, we can deal with it at that time. > > Best, > > Rafik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 12 13:09:37 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:09:37 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: <3730EA5B-CB23-4313-B70E-F5285ECA2023@icann.org> Message-ID: I think these are good questions. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 12 July 2018 11:53 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > My questions were perhaps not clear -- I thought it was understood that I had questions by raising issues, but let me try again: > > What is the basis that the consultant used to suggest that there is low cost and low start up time for Options 1 and 2? This makes no sense to me -- managing segrated funds is of course not hard for ICANN finance, but this is simply NOT the real work of managing a grants making activity, or tracking and reporting on grants. > > I would like to also hear more about how it would work to have each and every grant reported on the ICANN tax forms, and whether that increases the likelihood of iRS auditing ICANN. > > I'd also like to understand whether the ICANN present not for profit status includes such functions, under California law. > > Segregating staff; identifying how to create needed firewalls, and accountability mechanisms is not without cost but these were ignored in my view by the consultant. > > "Firing /laying off staff" upon the conclusion of the disbursement of funds can be perhaps taken into account, but I am not sure how -- as ICANN has a pay scale/benefits plan that exceeds what is typical for grant making organizations, in my experience. So, deciding that ICANN will add staff to bring in expertise, have a time sheet approach to allocate some time from other staff, such as legal, financial, etc. is fairly complex. Would staff brought into ICANN to add grant making and management/evaluation have to be brought in as contract staff, with time specific contracts? > > How will the IRS review ICANN's status, if the $100++M/or $230M is somehow now brought into ICANN's oversight? > > What is the competency requirement of the Board of ICANN to engage in Grant making/grant review/etc.? > > Will making oversight of the grant making/review require a change in the competency of Board members, and does this put the larger mission and core responsibilities at risk? Just a comment that in my experience, Boards of grant making organizations are selected for a variety of skills, which may include experience in understanding the core mission but also brings in experience in the field of grant making/management/evaluation of outcomes. > > The ICANN Board already speaks to how overworked they are and they are very committed. BUT, there is a set of core responsibilities that the Board has, that does not include grant making. Further, the Board does not have expertise in grant review and grant making - How did the consultant determine that the Board of ICANN was 'qualified/competent" to engage in reviewing grants, and how did the consultant propose that the process would work for using existing staff, and Board members? What would the additional time for existing Board members be to take on internal review of grants/review/management? > > How does the consultant perceive to curtail [and I mean curtail] the usual approach of the ICANN community to assume that they can "advocate" about decisions taken within ICANN processes? This is not a conflict of interest issue but a comment that we have to understand that it is human nature to to seek to influence outcomes of who receives funding. The CCWG should focus on guidance for what kind of projects can receive funding, in my view, but create a process that is external and not subject to the internal advocacy that will naturally develop. This puts ICANN's integrity, and even perhaps creates repetitional risks. > > I have more questions about an internal process, but let's start with those. > > Finally, I posted a question raised by a member of the CSG about the need to have grants reviewed for human rights implications. The consultant acknowledged the need to review all applications for IFAC [this is not a simple task] but did not address how an internal process within ICANN would fulfill this. > > I also would like to hear the consultant's perspective about the need to review for human rights implications. > > If this is needed, I will have questions about how an internal process would address this requirement. And, frankly, I don't think having volunteers from the ICANN community will "pass" the red face test with the IRS. But the retained consultant may have great answers to my questions. > > Marilyn > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: Marika Konings > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:08 AM > To: Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC > > Thanks, Marilyn for your input. I looked back at the email you sent prior to ICANN62, but it seemed to raise some concerns not necessarily questions, but I may have missed them? If you could please resend the questions you have for Sarah, staff can pass these on together with the one below. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: Marilyn Cade > Date: Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:01 > To: Marika Konings , "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" > Subject: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC > > Dear colleagues > > During the session that the CSG hosted with Xavier, during ICANN62, one of the attorneys raised a question with Xavier and myself regarding the need to review all grants for human rights implications. I haven't been able to properly research this, but wanted to raise it to staff to ask the retained consultant for more information. This would add significant review criteria to grant proposal reviews. > > I am not sure that I have seen answers to the questions that I raised, but I am still reviewing the documents in the attachment. > > Looking forward to our call. > > Marilyn Cade > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds on behalf of Marika Konings > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:44 AM > To: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org > Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC > > Dear All, > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG which is scheduled for Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC. > > Best regards, > > Marika > > Proposed Agenda ? new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting ? Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC: > > - Roll Call > > - Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates > > - Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates > > - Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version to be shared by staff shortly) > > - Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see attached) > > - Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) > > - Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 UTC) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Jul 12 14:50:06 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 07:50:06 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: <3730EA5B-CB23-4313-B70E-F5285ECA2023@icann.org> Message-ID: <4b8756a9-6531-376e-6671-115047503bcb@mail.utoronto.ca> I agree. I have not been active on auction pro lately (rather like watching paint dry, and I had conflicts) but we need to get back-up for this CCWG.? Julf and I have been active....need more help. Stephanie On 2018-07-12 06:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I think these are good questions. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 12 July 2018 11:53 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > >> My questions were perhaps not clear -- I thought it was understood >> that I had?questions by raising issues, ?but let me try again: >> >> >> What is the basis that the consultant used to suggest that there is >> low cost and low start up time for Options 1 and 2? ?This makes no >> sense to me -- managing segrated funds is of course not hard for >> ICANN finance, but this is simply NOT the real work of managing a >> grants making activity, or tracking and reporting on grants. >> >> >> I would like to also hear more about how it would work to have each >> and every grant reported on the ICANN tax forms, and whether that >> increases the likelihood of iRS auditing ICANN. >> >> >> I'd also like to understand whether the ICANN present not for profit >> status includes such functions, under California law. >> >> >> Segregating staff; identifying how to create needed firewalls, and >> accountability mechanisms is not without cost but these were ignored >> in my view by the consultant. >> >> >> "Firing /laying off staff" upon the conclusion of the disbursement of >> funds can be perhaps taken into account, but I am not sure how -- as >> ICANN has a pay scale/benefits plan that exceeds what is typical for >> grant making organizations, in my experience. So, deciding that ICANN >> will add staff to bring in expertise, have a time sheet approach to >> allocate some time from other staff, such as legal, financial, etc. >> is fairly complex. Would staff brought into ICANN to add grant making >> and management/evaluation have to be brought in as contract staff, >> with time specific contracts? >> >> >> How will the IRS review ICANN's status, if the $100++M/or $230M is >> somehow now brought into ICANN's oversight? >> >> >> What is the competency requirement of the Board of ICANN to engage in >> Grant making/grant review/etc.? >> >> >> Will making oversight of the grant making/review require a change in >> the competency of Board members, and does this put the larger mission >> and core responsibilities at risk? ?Just a comment that in my >> experience, Boards of grant making organizations are selected for a >> variety of skills, which may include experience in understanding the >> core mission but also brings in experience in the field of grant >> making/management/evaluation of outcomes. >> >> >> >> >> The ICANN?Board already speaks to how overworked they are and they >> are very committed. ?BUT, there is a set of core responsibilities >> that the Board has, that does not include grant making. ?Further, the >> Board does not have expertise in ?grant review and grant making - How >> did the consultant determine that the Board of ICANN was >> 'qualified/competent" to engage in reviewing grants, and how did the >> consultant propose that the process would work for using existing >> staff, and Board members? What would the additional time for existing >> Board members be to take on internal review of grants/review/management? >> >> >> How does the consultant perceive to curtail [and I mean curtail] the >> usual approach of the ICANN community to assume that they can >> "advocate" about decisions taken within ICANN processes? ?This is not >> a conflict of interest issue but a comment that we have to understand >> that it is human nature to to seek to influence outcomes of who >> receives funding. The CCWG should focus on guidance for what kind of >> projects can receive funding, in my view, but create a process that >> is external and not subject to the internal advocacy that will >> naturally develop. This puts ICANN's integrity, and even perhaps >> creates repetitional risks. >> >> >> I have more questions about an internal process, but let's start with >> those. >> >> Finally, I posted a question raised by a member of the CSG about the >> need to have grants reviewed for human rights implications. The >> consultant acknowledged the need to review all applications for IFAC >> [this is not a simple task] but did not address how an internal >> process within ICANN would fulfill this. >> >> >> I also would like to hear the consultant's perspective about the need >> to review for human rights implications. >> >> If this is needed, I will have questions about how an internal >> process would address this requirement. And, frankly, I don't think >> having volunteers from the ICANN community will "pass" the red face >> test with the IRS. ?But the retained consultant may have great >> answers to my questions. >> >> >> Marilyn >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Marika Konings >> *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:08 AM >> *To:* Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds >> CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC >> >> Thanks, Marilyn for your input. I looked back at the email you sent >> prior to ICANN62, but it seemed to raise some concerns not >> necessarily questions, but I may have missed them? If you could >> please resend the questions you have for Sarah, staff can pass these >> on together with the one below. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Marika >> >> >> *From: *Marilyn Cade >> *Date: *Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:01 >> *To: *Marika Konings , >> "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" >> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG >> meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC >> >> >> Dear colleagues >> >> >> During the session that the CSG hosted with Xavier, during ICANN62, >> one of the attorneys raised a question with Xavier and myself >> regarding the need to review all grants for human rights >> implications. I haven't been able to properly research this, but >> wanted to raise it to staff to ask the retained consultant for more >> information. This would add significant review criteria to grant >> proposal reviews. >> >> >> I am not sure that I have seen answers to the questions that I >> raised, but I am still reviewing the documents in the attachment. >> >> >> Looking forward to our call. >> >> >> Marilyn Cade >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:*Ccwg-auctionproceeds >> on behalf of Marika Konings >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:44 AM >> *To:* ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org >> *Subject:* [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction >> Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting of the >> new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG which is scheduled for Thursday 12 >> July at 14.00 UTC. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Marika >> >> >> *Proposed Agenda ? new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting ? Thursday >> 12 July at 14.00 UTC*: >> >> >> 1. Roll Call >> 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates >> 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates >> 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions(updated version >> to be shared by staff shortly) >> 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg >> -ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and >> Philanthropic Programs (see attached) >> 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) >> 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at >> 14.00 UTC) >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 14:53:29 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 20:53:29 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC In-Reply-To: <4b8756a9-6531-376e-6671-115047503bcb@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <3730EA5B-CB23-4313-B70E-F5285ECA2023@icann.org> <4b8756a9-6531-376e-6671-115047503bcb@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, by when the CCWG is supposed to deliver its initial recommendations? Best, Rafik Le jeu. 12 juil. 2018 ? 20:50, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > I agree. > > I have not been active on auction pro lately (rather like watching paint > dry, and I had conflicts) but we need to get back-up for this CCWG. Julf > and I have been active....need more help. > > Stephanie > On 2018-07-12 06:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I think these are good questions. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 12 July 2018 11:53 AM, Marilyn Cade > wrote: > > My questions were perhaps not clear -- I thought it was understood that I > had questions by raising issues, but let me try again: > > > What is the basis that the consultant used to suggest that there is low > cost and low start up time for Options 1 and 2? This makes no sense to me > -- managing segrated funds is of course not hard for ICANN finance, but > this is simply NOT the real work of managing a grants making activity, or > tracking and reporting on grants. > > > I would like to also hear more about how it would work to have each and > every grant reported on the ICANN tax forms, and whether that increases the > likelihood of iRS auditing ICANN. > > > I'd also like to understand whether the ICANN present not for profit > status includes such functions, under California law. > > > Segregating staff; identifying how to create needed firewalls, and > accountability mechanisms is not without cost but these were ignored in my > view by the consultant. > > > "Firing /laying off staff" upon the conclusion of the disbursement of > funds can be perhaps taken into account, but I am not sure how -- as ICANN > has a pay scale/benefits plan that exceeds what is typical for grant making > organizations, in my experience. So, deciding that ICANN will add staff to > bring in expertise, have a time sheet approach to allocate some time from > other staff, such as legal, financial, etc. is fairly complex. Would staff > brought into ICANN to add grant making and management/evaluation have to be > brought in as contract staff, with time specific contracts? > > > How will the IRS review ICANN's status, if the $100++M/or $230M is somehow > now brought into ICANN's oversight? > > > What is the competency requirement of the Board of ICANN to engage in > Grant making/grant review/etc.? > > > Will making oversight of the grant making/review require a change in the > competency of Board members, and does this put the larger mission and core > responsibilities at risk? Just a comment that in my experience, Boards of > grant making organizations are selected for a variety of skills, which may > include experience in understanding the core mission but also brings in > experience in the field of grant making/management/evaluation of outcomes. > > > > > The ICANN Board already speaks to how overworked they are and they are > very committed. BUT, there is a set of core responsibilities that the > Board has, that does not include grant making. Further, the Board does not > have expertise in grant review and grant making - How did the consultant > determine that the Board of ICANN was 'qualified/competent" to engage in > reviewing grants, and how did the consultant propose that the process would > work for using existing staff, and Board members? What would the additional > time for existing Board members be to take on internal review of > grants/review/management? > > > How does the consultant perceive to curtail [and I mean curtail] the usual > approach of the ICANN community to assume that they can "advocate" about > decisions taken within ICANN processes? This is not a conflict of interest > issue but a comment that we have to understand that it is human nature to > to seek to influence outcomes of who receives funding. The CCWG should > focus on guidance for what kind of projects can receive funding, in my > view, but create a process that is external and not subject to the internal > advocacy that will naturally develop. This puts ICANN's integrity, and even > perhaps creates repetitional risks. > > > I have more questions about an internal process, but let's start with > those. > > Finally, I posted a question raised by a member of the CSG about the need > to have grants reviewed for human rights implications. The consultant > acknowledged the need to review all applications for IFAC [this is not a > simple task] but did not address how an internal process within ICANN would > fulfill this. > > > I also would like to hear the consultant's perspective about the need to > review for human rights implications. > > If this is needed, I will have questions about how an internal process > would address this requirement. And, frankly, I don't think having > volunteers from the ICANN community will "pass" the red face test with the > IRS. But the retained consultant may have great answers to my questions. > > > Marilyn > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Marika Konings > > *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:08 AM > *To:* Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG > meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC > > > Thanks, Marilyn for your input. I looked back at the email you sent prior > to ICANN62, but it seemed to raise some concerns not necessarily questions, > but I may have missed them? If you could please resend the questions you > have for Sarah, staff can pass these on together with the one below. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > *From: *Marilyn Cade > *Date: *Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:01 > *To: *Marika Konings , > "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" > > *Subject: *[Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG > meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC > > > > Dear colleagues > > > > During the session that the CSG hosted with Xavier, during ICANN62, one of > the attorneys raised a question with Xavier and myself regarding the need > to review all grants for human rights implications. I haven't been able to > properly research this, but wanted to raise it to staff to ask the retained > consultant for more information. This would add significant review criteria > to grant proposal reviews. > > > > I am not sure that I have seen answers to the questions that I raised, but > I am still reviewing the documents in the attachment. > > > > Looking forward to our call. > > > > Marilyn Cade > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Ccwg-auctionproceeds > on behalf of Marika Konings > > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:44 AM > *To:* ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org > *Subject:* [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction > Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC > > > > Dear All, > > > > Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting of the new > gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG which is scheduled for Thursday 12 July at 14.00 > UTC. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > *Proposed Agenda ? new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting ? Thursday 12 > July at 14.00 UTC*: > > > > 1. Roll Call > 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates > 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates > 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions (updated version > to be shared by staff shortly) > 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg - ICANN > Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and Philanthropic Programs (see > attached) > 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) > 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at 14.00 > UTC) > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Jul 12 15:36:21 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:36:21 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: <3730EA5B-CB23-4313-B70E-F5285ECA2023@icann.org> <4b8756a9-6531-376e-6671-115047503bcb@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <96a702c9-f7f5-f99e-c462-3126a79ce20c@mail.utoronto.ca> Let me check the latest and get back to you Fik, I honestly don't know but was going to get on the call today and update myself. cheers SP On 2018-07-12 07:53, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > by when the CCWG is supposed to deliver its initial recommendations? > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le?jeu. 12 juil. 2018 ??20:50, Stephanie Perrin > > a ?crit?: > > I agree. > > I have not been active on auction pro lately (rather like watching > paint dry, and I had conflicts) but we need to get back-up for > this CCWG.? Julf and I have been active....need more help. > > Stephanie > > On 2018-07-12 06:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> I think these are good questions. >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 12 July 2018 11:53 AM, Marilyn Cade >> wrote: >> >>> My questions were perhaps not clear -- I thought it was >>> understood that I had?questions by raising issues, ?but let me >>> try again: >>> >>> >>> What is the basis that the consultant used to suggest that there >>> is low cost and low start up time for Options 1 and 2?? This >>> makes no sense to me -- managing segrated funds is of course not >>> hard for ICANN finance, but this is simply NOT the real work of >>> managing a grants making activity, or tracking and reporting on >>> grants. >>> >>> >>> I would like to also hear more about how it would work to have >>> each and every grant reported on the ICANN tax forms, and >>> whether that increases the likelihood of iRS auditing ICANN. >>> >>> >>> I'd also like to understand whether the ICANN present not for >>> profit status includes such functions, under California law. >>> >>> >>> Segregating staff; identifying how to create needed firewalls, >>> and accountability mechanisms is not without cost but these were >>> ignored in my view by the consultant. >>> >>> >>> "Firing /laying off staff" upon the conclusion of the >>> disbursement of funds can be perhaps taken into account, but I >>> am not sure how -- as ICANN has a pay scale/benefits plan that >>> exceeds what is typical for grant making organizations, in my >>> experience. So, deciding that ICANN will add staff to bring in >>> expertise, have a time sheet approach to allocate some time from >>> other staff, such as legal, financial, etc. is fairly complex. >>> Would staff brought into ICANN to add grant making and >>> management/evaluation have to be brought in as contract staff, >>> with time specific contracts? >>> >>> >>> How will the IRS review ICANN's status, if the $100++M/or $230M >>> is somehow now brought into ICANN's oversight? >>> >>> >>> What is the competency requirement of the Board of ICANN to >>> engage in Grant making/grant review/etc.? >>> >>> >>> Will making oversight of the grant making/review require a >>> change in the competency of Board members, and does this put the >>> larger mission and core responsibilities at risk?? Just a >>> comment that in my experience, Boards of grant making >>> organizations are selected for a variety of skills, which may >>> include experience in understanding the core mission but also >>> brings in experience in the field of grant >>> making/management/evaluation of outcomes. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The ICANN?Board already speaks to how overworked they are and >>> they are very committed.? BUT, there is a set of core >>> responsibilities that the Board has, that does not include grant >>> making. ?Further, the Board does not have expertise in ?grant >>> review and grant making - How did the consultant determine that >>> the Board of ICANN was 'qualified/competent" to engage in >>> reviewing grants, and how did the consultant propose that the >>> process would work for using existing staff, and Board members? >>> What would the additional time for existing Board members be to >>> take on internal review of grants/review/management? >>> >>> >>> How does the consultant perceive to curtail [and I mean curtail] >>> the usual approach of the ICANN community to assume that they >>> can "advocate" about decisions taken within ICANN processes? >>> ?This is not a conflict of interest issue but a comment that we >>> have to understand that it is human nature to to seek to >>> influence outcomes of who receives funding. The CCWG should >>> focus on guidance for what kind of projects can receive funding, >>> in my view, but create a process that is external and not >>> subject to the internal advocacy that will naturally develop. >>> This puts ICANN's integrity, and even perhaps creates >>> repetitional risks. >>> >>> >>> I have more questions about an internal process, but let's start >>> with those. >>> >>> Finally, I posted a question raised by a member of the CSG about >>> the need to have grants reviewed for human rights implications. >>> The consultant acknowledged the need to review all applications >>> for IFAC [this is not a simple task] but did not address how an >>> internal process within ICANN would fulfill this. >>> >>> >>> I also would like to hear the consultant's perspective about the >>> need to review for human rights implications. >>> >>> If this is needed, I will have questions about how an internal >>> process would address this requirement. And, frankly, I don't >>> think having volunteers from the ICANN community will "pass" the >>> red face test with the IRS.? But the retained consultant may >>> have great answers to my questions. >>> >>> >>> Marilyn >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* Marika Konings >>> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:08 AM >>> *To:* Marilyn Cade; ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction >>> Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC >>> >>> Thanks, Marilyn for your input. I looked back at the email you >>> sent prior to ICANN62, but it seemed to raise some concerns not >>> necessarily questions, but I may have missed them? If you could >>> please resend the questions you have for Sarah, staff can pass >>> these on together with the one below. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> >>> *From: *Marilyn Cade >>> >>> *Date: *Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:01 >>> *To: *Marika Konings >>> , >>> "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" >>> >>> >>> >>> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: Proposed agenda - new gTLD Auction Proceeds >>> CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC >>> >>> >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> >>> During the session that the CSG hosted with Xavier, during >>> ICANN62, one of the attorneys raised a question with Xavier and >>> myself regarding the need to review all grants for human rights >>> implications. I haven't been able to properly research this, but >>> wanted to raise it to staff to ask the retained consultant for >>> more information. This would add significant review criteria to >>> grant proposal reviews. >>> >>> >>> I am not sure that I have seen answers to the questions that I >>> raised, but I am still reviewing the documents in the attachment. >>> >>> >>> Looking forward to our call. >>> >>> >>> Marilyn Cade >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:*Ccwg-auctionproceeds >>> >>> on behalf of >>> Marika Konings >>> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:44 AM >>> *To:* ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org >>> >>> *Subject:* [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda - new gTLD >>> Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting of 12 July at 14.00 UTC >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting >>> of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG which is scheduled for >>> Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Marika >>> >>> >>> *Proposed Agenda ? new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting ? >>> Thursday 12 July at 14.00 UTC*: >>> >>> >>> 1. Roll Call >>> 2. Welcome / SOI-DOI Updates >>> 3. Recap from CCWG62 related meetings and updates >>> 4. Review of proposed responses to charter questions(updated >>> version to be shared by staff shortly) >>> 5. Final review of summary descriptions provided by Sarah Berg >>> -ICANN Contracted Advisor on Strategic Development and >>> Philanthropic Programs (see attached) >>> 6. Feedback on remaining steps and proposed timeline (see attached) >>> 7. Confirmation of next steps and next meeting (26 July 2018 at >>> 14.00 UTC) >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 19:06:26 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 12:06:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Request for Appointment of Members and Liaisons to the IANA Naming Function Review ("IFR") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think someone with experience at CWG would be ideal. Farzaneh On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:33 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Farzaneh, > > thanks for sharing. this is another task in our backlog for appointments > (PIR, EPDP, IFR). it can be useful to get a generic appointment process too > after finishing them. > does this need someone with experience in CWG discussion or not? we got a > sample form in the document and we can use that, adding our own criteria. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le mar. 3 juil. 2018 ? 01:59, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> We need to open a call for an NCSG member to be appointed to the review >> team of IANA Naming Function. Sounds very specialized so need to come up >> with a couple of qualifications candidate might have to meet. >> >> Best >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at apc.org Fri Jul 13 00:03:09 2018 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 17:03:09 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP members consulting with membership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1902f2-fb58-c6c5-3520-b0d264bf37b7@apc.org> (observer) Hi, On 11-Jul-18 07:50, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Just wanted to bring this up for consideration and I request this > to be seriously discussed. It is well known and agreed that ePDP > members will be advancing and representing the positions of their > appointed groups, not their personal views. This has been agreed > upon based on the nature of this effort. > > How will you handle the occasions when the NCSG is split on an issue. Will the ePDP members be allowed to represent one of the views expressed or will the NCSG have to take no position on issues where there is not SG agreement? avri From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 00:06:12 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 17:06:12 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meetings for Barcelona Message-ID: Hi everyone I needed to send the request for the meetings for Barcelona quickly To reserve the meetings with various groups so that they don't run out of availability. i just asked for meetings with: Meeting with CPH Meeting with GAC Meeting with SSAC All surrounding whois and privacy issues. Best Farzaneh -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 00:14:24 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 06:14:24 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ePDP members consulting with membership In-Reply-To: <2a1902f2-fb58-c6c5-3520-b0d264bf37b7@apc.org> References: <2a1902f2-fb58-c6c5-3520-b0d264bf37b7@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, I think the first goal to work on agreed positions on every topic and spend time toward that including making compromise. I am not sure that is effective or feasible to have members presenting different positions when there is expectation from other groups to see one position. I have no idea what can the topic where we will have disagreement. while not presenting position may be safe but I dont know if it is the right approach. I can understand as principle to have split positions but how much effective it is in long run and how it can impact negotiation toward consensus in EPDP itself. I would go with deciding case by case and weigh the merits of any choice make and we can from that as outcome. Best, Rafik On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:03 AM avri doria wrote: > (observer) > > Hi, > > > On 11-Jul-18 07:50, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > > Just wanted to bring this up for consideration and I request this > > to be seriously discussed. It is well known and agreed that ePDP > > members will be advancing and representing the positions of their > > appointed groups, not their personal views. This has been agreed > > upon based on the nature of this effort. > > > > > > How will you handle the occasions when the NCSG is split on an issue. > Will the ePDP members be allowed to represent one of the views expressed > or will the NCSG have to take no position on issues where there is not > SG agreement? > > avri > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 00:17:23 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 06:17:23 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meetings for Barcelona In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Farzaneh, all good suggestion. I guess we will have as usual our PC meeting. For joint meetings, we used for years to have one with ALAC, wondering if we resume that (cooperating with them even if we were vocal about the review). Best, Rafik On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:06 AM farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi everyone > > I needed to send the request for the meetings for Barcelona quickly To > reserve the meetings with various groups so that they don't run out of > availability. i just asked for meetings with: > > Meeting with CPH > > Meeting with GAC > > Meeting with SSAC > > All surrounding whois and privacy issues. > > Best > > Farzaneh > > > > > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 00:18:21 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 17:18:21 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meetings for Barcelona In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes that is very important. I will ask Maryam to ask for a meeting with them as well. Farzaneh On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:17 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Thanks Farzaneh, all good suggestion. I guess we will have as usual our PC > meeting. > > For joint meetings, we used for years to have one with ALAC, wondering if > we resume that (cooperating with them even if we were vocal about the > review). > > Best, > > Rafik > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:06 AM farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> Hi everyone >> >> I needed to send the request for the meetings for Barcelona quickly To >> reserve the meetings with various groups so that they don't run out of >> availability. i just asked for meetings with: >> >> Meeting with CPH >> >> Meeting with GAC >> >> Meeting with SSAC >> >> All surrounding whois and privacy issues. >> >> Best >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Jul 13 00:35:04 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 17:35:04 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meetings for Barcelona In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10e4dc86-c28f-e575-c376-46803f11d6d6@mail.utoronto.ca> Please could you support my bid for a workshop on accreditation standards?? I am about to write Goran and Akram and Cherine to request time and a room, to do an MS workshop to discuss the issue. SP On 2018-07-12 17:18, farzaneh badii wrote: > Yes that is very important. I will ask Maryam to ask for a meeting > with?them as well. > > > Farzaneh > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:17 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Thanks Farzaneh, all good suggestion. I guess we will have as > usual our PC meeting. > > For joint meetings, we used for years to have one with ALAC, > wondering if we resume that (cooperating with them even if we were > vocal about the review). > > Best, > > Rafik > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:06 AM farzaneh badii > > wrote: > > Hi everyone > > I needed to send the request for the meetings for Barcelona > quickly To reserve the meetings with various groups so that > they don't run out of availability. i just asked for meetings > with: > > Meeting with CPH > > Meeting with GAC > > Meeting with SSAC > > All surrounding whois and privacy issues. > > Best > > Farzaneh > > > > > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 05:35:11 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 11:35:11 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, we have a public comment draft to review asap Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment To: ncsg-pc Hi all, this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel Support Guidelines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. so please review and share your comments. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Fri Jul 13 11:58:49 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:58:49 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> Dear Rafik, I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot see any comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on another/wrong version?) @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > we have a public comment draft to review asap > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Rafik Dammak > > Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 > Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment > To: ncsg-pc > > > > Hi all, > > this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel Support Guidelines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing > the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. so please review and share your comments. > > Best, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Fri Jul 13 11:59:42 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:59:42 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meetings for Barcelona In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Farzaneh, No objection to that. Thanks for the good job. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 12 Jul 2018, at 23:06, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hi everyone > > I needed to send the request for the meetings for Barcelona quickly To reserve the meetings with various groups so that they don't run out of availability. i just asked for meetings with: > > Meeting with CPH > > Meeting with GAC > > Meeting with SSAC > > All surrounding whois and privacy issues. > > Best > > Farzaneh > > > > > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 12:38:18 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 18:38:18 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> References: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi Farell, I don't recall resolving or editing this week that draft. Best, Rafik On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:58 PM Farell FOLLY wrote: > Dear Rafik, > > I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot see any > comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on another/wrong > version?) > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > > On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > we have a public comment draft to review asap > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 > Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment > To: ncsg-pc > > > Hi all, > > this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel Support > Guidelines: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing > the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. so > please review and share your comments. > > Best, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 13 12:43:45 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 05:43:45 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: I resolved the comments/edits that came in. None were contentious. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 13 July 2018 11:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Farell, > > I don't recall resolving or editing this week that draft. > > Best, > > Rafik > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:58 PM Farell FOLLY wrote: > >> Dear Rafik, >> >> I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot see any comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on another/wrong version?) >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> we have a public comment draft to review asap >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Rafik Dammak >>> Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 >>> Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment >>> To: ncsg-pc >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel Support Guidelines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>> the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. so please review and share your comments. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 12:51:44 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 11:51:44 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: All, I saw that Ayden resolved all my comments so I am supposingly fine with the document although I would love to give it a kinda final look! Am now at WHOIS session at Council of Europe octopus conference and I brought no laptop to have no distractions. I will check the document again (just in case because I believe my concerns and comments were addressed) this evening once I get home ? hope it?s okay. Cheers, Tanya On Fri 13. Jul 2018 at 11:43, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I resolved the comments/edits that came in. None were contentious. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 13 July 2018 11:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Farell, > > I don't recall resolving or editing this week that draft. > > Best, > > Rafik > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:58 PM Farell FOLLY > wrote: > >> Dear Rafik, >> >> I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot see any >> comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on another/wrong >> version?) >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> we have a public comment draft to review asap >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >> Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 >> Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment >> To: ncsg-pc >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel >> Support Guidelines: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >> the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. so >> please review and share your comments. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Fri Jul 13 13:25:27 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 12:25:27 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Thx Ayden. Rafik, I don?t have anymore thing substantial to add so far. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 13 Jul 2018, at 11:43, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I resolved the comments/edits that came in. None were contentious. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 13 July 2018 11:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Farell, >> >> I don't recall resolving or editing this week that draft. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:58 PM Farell FOLLY > wrote: >> Dear Rafik, >> >> I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot see any comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on another/wrong version?) >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> we have a public comment draft to review asap >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Rafik Dammak > >>> Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 >>> Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment >>> To: ncsg-pc > >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel Support Guidelines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>> the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. so please review and share your comments. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 13:27:18 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:27:18 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Reminder - input due by COB today!! Fwd: Notes & action items from EPDP DT meeting as well as Scope Section for review In-Reply-To: <40E96B7C-3EBA-4D57-8884-7222DCF23405@icann.org> References: <46F752EF-D0FA-449D-96EE-910E71EAB3BB@icann.org> <40E96B7C-3EBA-4D57-8884-7222DCF23405@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi. Please review the scope document and share you input here. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Marika Konings Date: Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:07 PM Subject: [Epdp-dt] Reminder - input due by COB today!! Fwd: Notes & action items from EPDP DT meeting as well as Scope Section for review To: epdp-dt at icann.org *Action item* *#3*: DT to review scope document as presented by Keith (*see attached*) as soon as possible, ideally within the next 24 hours, but no later than by Friday 13 July COB and share any comments / concerns with the mailing list. Begin forwarded message: *From:* Marika Konings *Date:* 11 July 2018 at 16:24:30 GMT+2 *To:* "epdp-dt at icann.org" *Subject:* *Notes & action items from EPDP DT meeting as well as Scope Section for review* Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today?s EPDP DT meeting. A reminder of the action items: *Action item* *#1*: Staff to launch call to appoint members shortly after this meeting. *Action *item #2: Staff to update draft charter with updates as agreed (see notes below). *Action item* *#3*: DT to review scope document as presented by Keith (*see attached*) as soon as possible, ideally within the next 24 hours, but no later than by Friday 13 July COB and share any comments / concerns with the mailing list. *Action item #4*: Keith to produce updated version by Saturday 14 July, Sunday 15 July - small team to review updated version, Monday 16 July - proposed final version shared with DT. *Action item #5*: If there are concerns about any of the other remaining items, please share those with the DT list (by Friday 13 July COB at the latest). Best regards, Marika *Notes & Action Items ? EPDP DT Meeting ? 11 July 2018*: *These high-level notes are designed to help the DT navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/2wA5BQ [community.icann.org] .* - Objective of today's meeting is to finalize charter in view of Council consideration during 19 July Council meeting. - Considerable progress has been made on a number of items, including composition, as a result of compromises that have been made. Let's not loose sight of the goodwill that has made this progress possible. - Avoid temptation to look backwards or forwards, objective is to produce a charter, not to do the work of the EPDP Team. - Small team summary: held 3 meetings since Panama focused on composition and scope. Proposed composition text was shared with DT on Saturday 7 July. This language also included a role description. Scope has been the main focus of the last two meetings. Key points that have come out of the discussion: concerns around whether there should be a phased or parallel efforts - ultimately what needs to happen is that temp spec needs to be confirmed by 25 May 2018, but third party access is also important. Small team has identified a number of gating questions that need to be addressed before discussions can start on the broader access related questions not covered by the temp spec (not including the annex). - Team composition - as soon as in principle agreement has been reached, call for volunteers should be launched. See latest version as included in the draft charter documents that were circulated prior to the meeting. Note also the requirements to commit to a statement of participation, as outlined in the draft call for volunteers that was circulated. Not adhering to the statement of participation could result in suspension. - Vice-Chair(s): proposal to have 1 vice chair instead of the originally proposed two to keep the leadership team small. Consider leaving it up to the EPDP Team to decide whether it is one or two. How is neutrality of vice-chair addressed? Should this be mentioned in case of replacement of the chair? EPDP Team could communicate this as part of the selection process for vice-chair(s) so that expectations are clear. Agreement that it should be left up to the EPDP Team whether it appoints 1 or 2 vice-chairs, noting that should vice-chair steps into chair role, chair requirements will need to be adhered to. Update charter as well as call for vollunteers accordingly. - Proposed change to iii - replace 'and trademark law' with 'and other relevant topics'. Agreement. - Double check count of members/alternates/liaisons in charter and update if needed. *Action item* *#1*: Staff to launch call to appoint members shortly after this meeting. *Action *item #2: Staff to update draft charter with updates as agreed (see notes above). *Scope*: - Good progress has been made by the small team, which is getting close to a stable document. Some challenges with the short turn around times and documents / comments that have been circulated between yesterday's meeting and now. - See latest version shared in Adobe Connect which Keith held the pen on bringing different aspects of the discussion together. - Some questions have been identified as gating questions which would form the pivot point to determine when further detailed discussions on access could start. Once those have been answered it would be reasonable to start discussions on the broader access questions. - Note that in relation to third deliverable on page 8 there is a reference to full consensus - this is probably the result of a copy / paste. To be corrected accordingly. - High level concerns need to be expressed as soon as possible, ideally during today's meeting. - Suggestion to not use the term "non-public registration data", it is "the personal and sensitive information of domain name registrants". Concern about consistency - need to make sure whathever is used aligns with what is in the Temp spec. - See objectives & goals section for the expected deliverables as well as expected timing. - Timeline currently in the charter is only specific to temp spec related questions, needs updating to reflect this second part dealing with access. - Important to be in a position to adopt the charter and demonstrate a united front at the upcoming Council meeting. - Ideally have all comments in by Friday so that final version is produced over the weekend (Sat - Keith to produce updated version, Sunday - small team to review, Monday - final version to DT). - Ideally no changes to any of the sections of the charter after Tuesday. *Action item* *#3*: DT to review scope document as presented by Keith as soon as possible, ideally within the next 24 hours, but no later than by Friday 13 July COB and share any comments / concerns with the mailing list. *Action item #4*: Keith to produce updated version by Saturday 14 July, Sunday 15 July - small team to review updated version, Monday 16 July - proposed final version shared with DT *Remaining items*: - Who reviews EOI applications? Proposal to have Council leadership and SSC leadership (Susan, Chair and Maxim, Vice-Chair) review the EOIs. Agreement to move forward as proposed (Council leadership plus SSC leadership). How to deal with Chair affirmation? Consider having selection committee decide by full consensus as all SGs are represented through Council leadership and SSC chairs. Agreement to have Council leadership + SSC leadership make a recommendation by full consensus to the GNSO Council. - If there are concerns about any of the other items, please share those with the DT list (by Friday COB at the latest). *Action item #5*: If there are concerns about any of the other remaining items, please share those with the DT list (by Friday COB at the latest). *Marika Konings* *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages . * _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Updated Scope Section 10 July 2018 -- Proposed Clean Draft v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 33065 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 13 13:28:35 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 06:28:35 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi Tatiana, I did accept all of your edits, however there were subsequently a number of other edits that came in, so the document might be a little different to what you reviewed. While in my opinion none run contrary to the original sentiment, it might be a good idea to give it one final review! Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 13 July 2018 11:51 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > All, > I saw that Ayden resolved all my comments so I am supposingly fine with the document although I would love to give it a kinda final look! Am now at WHOIS session at Council of Europe octopus conference and I brought no laptop to have no distractions. I will check the document again (just in case because I believe my concerns and comments were addressed) this evening once I get home ? hope it?s okay. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On Fri 13. Jul 2018 at 11:43, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> I resolved the comments/edits that came in. None were contentious. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 13 July 2018 11:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Farell, >>> >>> I don't recall resolving or editing this week that draft. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:58 PM Farell FOLLY wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Rafik, >>>> >>>> I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot see any comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on another/wrong version?) >>>> >>>> @__f_f__ >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> >>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>> >>>>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> we have a public comment draft to review asap >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>>> Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 >>>>> Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment >>>>> To: ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel Support Guidelines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. so please review and share your comments. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 16:39:50 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 09:39:50 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: I'd like to add a visa paragraph if not added already. I can do it today. On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:28 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi Tatiana, > > I did accept all of your edits, however there were subsequently a number > of other edits that came in, so the document might be a little different to > what you reviewed. While in my opinion none run contrary to the original > sentiment, it might be a good idea to give it one final review! > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 13 July 2018 11:51 AM, Tatiana Tropina > wrote: > > All, > I saw that Ayden resolved all my comments so I am supposingly fine with > the document although I would love to give it a kinda final look! Am now at > WHOIS session at Council of Europe octopus conference and I brought no > laptop to have no distractions. I will check the document again (just in > case because I believe my concerns and comments were addressed) this > evening once I get home ? hope it?s okay. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On Fri 13. Jul 2018 at 11:43, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> I resolved the comments/edits that came in. None were contentious. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 13 July 2018 11:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Farell, >> >> I don't recall resolving or editing this week that draft. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:58 PM Farell FOLLY >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Rafik, >>> >>> I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot see any >>> comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on another/wrong >>> version?) >>> >>> @__f_f__ >>> >>> Best Regards >>> ____________________________________ >>> >>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>> www.africa2point0.org >>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> we have a public comment draft to review asap >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>> Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 >>> Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment >>> To: ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel >>> Support Guidelines: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>> the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. so >>> please review and share your comments. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 18:02:40 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:02:40 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meetings for Barcelona In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes a meeting with ALAC is also important. We need to keep the cooperation with them. Tijani and Sarah recently approached me (about our letter to the Board on their review) and their question was like "what do you personally have against us"? I was like: nothing personal. 2018-07-13 10:59 UTC+02:00, Farell FOLLY : > Dear Farzaneh, > > No objection to that. Thanks for the good job. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > >> On 12 Jul 2018, at 23:06, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone >> >> I needed to send the request for the meetings for Barcelona quickly To >> reserve the meetings with various groups so that they don't run out of >> availability. i just asked for meetings with: >> >> Meeting with CPH >> >> Meeting with GAC >> >> Meeting with SSAC >> >> All surrounding whois and privacy issues. >> >> Best >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English ) and (French ) From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 18:11:53 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 11:11:53 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meetings for Barcelona In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very good answer Arsene. Actually I have cooperated with Tijani in middle east group. It absolutely has nothing to do with us having something personal against them. We just didn't agree with their implementation plan for the reviews. On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:02 AM Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > Yes a meeting with ALAC is also important. We need to keep the > cooperation with them. > > Tijani and Sarah recently approached me (about our letter to the Board > on their review) and their question was like "what do you personally > have against us"? > > I was like: nothing personal. > > 2018-07-13 10:59 UTC+02:00, Farell FOLLY : > > Dear Farzaneh, > > > > No objection to that. Thanks for the good job. > > > > @__f_f__ > > > > Best Regards > > ____________________________________ > > > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > > www.africa2point0.org > > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 12 Jul 2018, at 23:06, farzaneh badii > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hi everyone > >> > >> I needed to send the request for the meetings for Barcelona quickly To > >> reserve the meetings with various groups so that they don't run out of > >> availability. i just asked for meetings with: > >> > >> Meeting with CPH > >> > >> Meeting with GAC > >> > >> Meeting with SSAC > >> > >> All surrounding whois and privacy issues. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Farzaneh > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Farzaneh > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NCSG-PC mailing list > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > **Ars?ne Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa > Forum > * > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > < > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > < > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors > > > & Mexico > < > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors > >) > - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger > - ICANN's GNSO Council > Member. AFRINIC Fellow > ( > Mauritius > >)* > - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet > Freedom. > > Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English > ) and (French > ) > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 20:22:13 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 13:22:13 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Reminder - input due by COB today!! Fwd: Notes & action items from EPDP DT meeting as well as Scope Section for review In-Reply-To: References: <46F752EF-D0FA-449D-96EE-910E71EAB3BB@icann.org> <40E96B7C-3EBA-4D57-8884-7222DCF23405@icann.org> Message-ID: Rafik Thanks I had a look I thank Stephanie for the work but I am livid seeing the reasonable access questions in part two. Can we 1. modify the questions under J. Tem Spec and reasonable access 2. move them to after part 4? If they don't accept it then we have to move part 3 before J. Temporary Specification and Reasonable Access. See my comments attached. Farzaneh On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:27 AM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi. > > Please review the scope document and share you input here. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Marika Konings > Date: Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:07 PM > Subject: [Epdp-dt] Reminder - input due by COB today!! Fwd: Notes & action > items from EPDP DT meeting as well as Scope Section for review > To: epdp-dt at icann.org > > > > *Action item* *#3*: DT to review scope document as presented by Keith (*see > attached*) as soon as possible, ideally within the next 24 hours, but no > later than by Friday 13 July COB and share any comments / concerns with the > mailing list. > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Marika Konings > *Date:* 11 July 2018 at 16:24:30 GMT+2 > *To:* "epdp-dt at icann.org" > *Subject:* *Notes & action items from EPDP DT meeting as well as Scope > Section for review* > > Dear All, > > > > Please find below the notes and action items from today?s EPDP DT meeting. > A reminder of the action items: > > > > *Action item* *#1*: Staff to launch call to appoint members shortly after > this meeting. > > *Action *item #2: Staff to update draft charter with updates as agreed > (see notes below). > > *Action item* *#3*: DT to review scope document as presented by Keith (*see > attached*) as soon as possible, ideally within the next 24 hours, but no > later than by Friday 13 July COB and share any comments / concerns with the > mailing list. > > *Action item #4*: Keith to produce updated version by Saturday 14 July, > Sunday 15 July - small team to review updated version, Monday 16 July - > proposed final version shared with DT. > > *Action item #5*: If there are concerns about any of the other remaining > items, please share those with the DT list (by Friday 13 July COB at the > latest). > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > *Notes & Action Items ? EPDP DT Meeting ? 11 July 2018*: > > > > *These high-level notes are designed to help the DT navigate through the > content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript > and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and > are posted on the wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/2wA5BQ > [community.icann.org] > .* > > > > - Objective of today's meeting is to finalize charter in view of > Council consideration during 19 July Council meeting. > - Considerable progress has been made on a number of items, including > composition, as a result of compromises that have been made. Let's not > loose sight of the goodwill that has made this progress possible. > - Avoid temptation to look backwards or forwards, objective is to > produce a charter, not to do the work of the EPDP Team. > - Small team summary: held 3 meetings since Panama focused on > composition and scope. Proposed composition text was shared with DT on > Saturday 7 July. This language also included a role description. Scope has > been the main focus of the last two meetings. Key points that have come out > of the discussion: concerns around whether there should be a phased or > parallel efforts - ultimately what needs to happen is that temp spec needs > to be confirmed by 25 May 2018, but third party access is also important. > Small team has identified a number of gating questions that need to be > addressed before discussions can start on the broader access related > questions not covered by the temp spec (not including the annex). > - Team composition - as soon as in principle agreement has been > reached, call for volunteers should be launched. See latest version as > included in the draft charter documents that were circulated prior to the > meeting. Note also the requirements to commit to a statement of > participation, as outlined in the draft call for volunteers that was > circulated. Not adhering to the statement of participation could result in > suspension. > - Vice-Chair(s): proposal to have 1 vice chair instead of the > originally proposed two to keep the leadership team small. Consider leaving > it up to the EPDP Team to decide whether it is one or two. How is > neutrality of vice-chair addressed? Should this be mentioned in case of > replacement of the chair? EPDP Team could communicate this as part of the > selection process for vice-chair(s) so that expectations are clear. > Agreement that it should be left up to the EPDP Team whether it appoints 1 > or 2 vice-chairs, noting that should vice-chair steps into chair role, > chair requirements will need to be adhered to. Update charter as well as > call for vollunteers accordingly. > - Proposed change to iii - replace 'and trademark law' with 'and other > relevant topics'. Agreement. > - Double check count of members/alternates/liaisons in charter and > update if needed. > > > > *Action item* *#1*: Staff to launch call to appoint members shortly after > this meeting. > > *Action *item #2: Staff to update draft charter with updates as agreed > (see notes above). > > > > *Scope*: > > - Good progress has been made by the small team, which is getting > close to a stable document. Some challenges with the short turn around > times and documents / comments that have been circulated between > yesterday's meeting and now. > - See latest version shared in Adobe Connect which Keith held the pen > on bringing different aspects of the discussion together. > - Some questions have been identified as gating questions which would > form the pivot point to determine when further detailed discussions on > access could start. Once those have been answered it would be reasonable to > start discussions on the broader access questions. > - Note that in relation to third deliverable on page 8 there is a > reference to full consensus - this is probably the result of a copy / > paste. To be corrected accordingly. > - High level concerns need to be expressed as soon as possible, > ideally during today's meeting. > - Suggestion to not use the term "non-public registration data", it is > "the personal and sensitive information of domain name registrants". > Concern about consistency - need to make sure whathever is used aligns with > what is in the Temp spec. > - See objectives & goals section for the expected deliverables as well > as expected timing. > - Timeline currently in the charter is only specific to temp spec > related questions, needs updating to reflect this second part dealing with > access. > - Important to be in a position to adopt the charter and demonstrate a > united front at the upcoming Council meeting. > - Ideally have all comments in by Friday so that final version is > produced over the weekend (Sat - Keith to produce updated version, Sunday - > small team to review, Monday - final version to DT). > - Ideally no changes to any of the sections of the charter after > Tuesday. > > > > *Action item* *#3*: DT to review scope document as presented by Keith as > soon as possible, ideally within the next 24 hours, but no later than by > Friday 13 July COB and share any comments / concerns with the mailing list. > > > > *Action item #4*: Keith to produce updated version by Saturday 14 July, > Sunday 15 July - small team to review updated version, Monday 16 July - > proposed final version shared with DT > > > > *Remaining items*: > > - Who reviews EOI applications? Proposal to have Council leadership > and SSC leadership (Susan, Chair and Maxim, Vice-Chair) review the EOIs. > Agreement to move forward as proposed (Council leadership plus SSC > leadership). How to deal with Chair affirmation? Consider having selection > committee decide by full consensus as all SGs are represented through > Council leadership and SSC chairs. Agreement to have Council leadership + > SSC leadership make a recommendation by full consensus to the GNSO Council. > - If there are concerns about any of the other items, please share > those with the DT list (by Friday COB at the latest). > > > > *Action item #5*: If there are concerns about any of the other remaining > items, please share those with the DT list (by Friday COB at the latest). > > > > *Marika Konings* > > *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation > for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * > > *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * > > > > *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* > > *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > . * > > > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Updated Scope Section 10 July 2018 -- Proposed Clean Draft v2-FB.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 34397 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Jul 13 20:24:50 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 13:24:50 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Reminder - input due by COB today!! Fwd: Notes & action items from EPDP DT meeting as well as Scope Section for review In-Reply-To: References: <46F752EF-D0FA-449D-96EE-910E71EAB3BB@icann.org> <40E96B7C-3EBA-4D57-8884-7222DCF23405@icann.org> Message-ID: <417b3c26-9c8f-5b99-1232-26302228053e@mail.utoronto.ca> I hear you. they don't always take my edits, oddly enough. I will change your edits to mine, otherwise they will be removed (small team only at this point) cheers Steph On 2018-07-13 1:22 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Rafik > > Thanks I had a look I thank Stephanie for the work but I am livid > seeing the reasonable access questions in part two. Can we 1. modify > the questions under J. Tem Spec and reasonable access 2. move them to > after part 4? If they don't accept it then we have to move part 3 before > > J. Temporary Specification and Reasonable Access. > > > See my comments attached. > > > Farzaneh > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:27 AM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi. > > Please review the scope document and share you input here. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Marika Konings* > > Date: Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:07 PM > Subject: [Epdp-dt] Reminder - input due by COB today!! Fwd: Notes > & action items from EPDP DT meeting as well as Scope Section for > review > To: epdp-dt at icann.org > > > > > > *Action item* *#3*: DT to review scope document as presented by > Keith (*see attached*) as soon as possible, ideally within the > next 24 hours, but no later than by Friday 13 July COB and share > any comments / concerns with the mailing list. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From:* Marika Konings > > >> *Date:* 11 July 2018 at 16:24:30 GMT+2 >> *To:* "epdp-dt at icann.org " >> > >> *Subject:* *Notes & action items from EPDP DT meeting as well as >> Scope Section for review* >> >> Dear All, >> >> Please find below the notes and action items from today?s EPDP DT >> meeting. A reminder of the action items: >> >> *Action item* *#1*: Staff to launch call to appoint members >> shortly after this meeting. >> >> *Action *item #2: Staff to update draft charter with updates as >> agreed (see notes below). >> >> *Action item* *#3*: DT to review scope document as presented by >> Keith (*see attached*) as soon as possible, ideally within the >> next 24 hours, but no later than by Friday 13 July COB and share >> any comments / concerns with the mailing list. >> >> *Action item #4*: Keith to produce updated version by Saturday >> 14 July, Sunday 15 July - small team to review updated version, >> Monday 16 July - proposed final version shared with DT. >> >> *Action item #5*: If there are concerns about any of the other >> remaining items, please share those with the DT list (by Friday >> 13 July COB at the latest). >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> *Notes & Action Items ? EPDP DT Meeting ? 11 July 2018*: >> >> /These high-level notes are designed to help the DT navigate >> through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute >> for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and >> chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at >> https://community.icann.org/x/2wA5BQ [community.icann.org] >> ./ >> >> * Objective of today's meeting is to finalize charter in view >> of Council consideration during 19 July Council meeting. >> * Considerable progress has been made on a number of items, >> including composition, as a result of compromises that have >> been made. Let's not loose sight of the goodwill that has >> made this progress possible. >> * Avoid temptation to look backwards or forwards, objective is >> to produce a charter, not to do the work of the EPDP Team. >> * Small team summary: held 3 meetings since Panama focused on >> composition and scope. Proposed composition text was shared >> with DT on Saturday 7 July. This language also included a >> role description. Scope has been the main focus of the last >> two meetings. Key points that have come out of the >> discussion: concerns around whether there should be a phased >> or parallel efforts - ultimately what needs to happen is that >> temp spec needs to be confirmed by 25 May 2018, but third >> party access is also important. Small team has identified a >> number of gating questions that need to be addressed before >> discussions can start on the broader access related questions >> not covered by the temp spec (not including the annex). >> * Team composition - as soon as in principle agreement has been >> reached, call for volunteers should be launched. See latest >> version as included in the draft charter documents that were >> circulated prior to the meeting. Note also the requirements >> to commit to a statement of participation, as outlined in the >> draft call for volunteers that was circulated. Not adhering >> to the statement of participation could result in suspension. >> * Vice-Chair(s): proposal to have 1 vice chair instead of the >> originally proposed two to keep the leadership team small. >> Consider leaving it up to the EPDP Team to decide whether it >> is one or two. How is neutrality of vice-chair addressed? >> Should this be mentioned in case of replacement of the chair? >> EPDP Team could communicate this as part of the selection >> process for vice-chair(s) so that expectations are clear. >> Agreement that it should be left up to the EPDP Team whether >> it appoints 1 or 2 vice-chairs, noting that should vice-chair >> steps into chair role, chair requirements will need to be >> adhered to. Update charter as well as call for vollunteers >> accordingly. >> * Proposed change to iii - replace 'and trademark law' with >> 'and other relevant topics'. Agreement. >> * Double check count of members/alternates/liaisons in charter >> and update if needed. >> >> *Action item* *#1*: Staff to launch call to appoint members >> shortly after this meeting. >> >> *Action *item #2: Staff to update draft charter with updates as >> agreed (see notes above). >> >> *Scope*: >> >> * Good progress has been made by the small team, which is >> getting close to a stable document. Some challenges with the >> short turn around times and documents / comments that have >> been circulated between yesterday's meeting and now. >> * See latest version shared in Adobe Connect which Keith held >> the pen on bringing different aspects of the discussion >> together. >> * Some questions have been identified as gating questions which >> would form the pivot point to determine when further detailed >> discussions on access could start. Once those have been >> answered it would be reasonable to start discussions on the >> broader access questions. >> * Note that in relation to third deliverable on page 8 there is >> a reference to full consensus - this is probably the result >> of a copy / paste. To be corrected accordingly. >> * High level concerns need to be expressed as soon as possible, >> ideally during today's meeting. >> * Suggestion to not use the term "non-public registration >> data", it is "the personal and sensitive information of >> domain name registrants". Concern about consistency - need to >> make sure whathever is used aligns with what is in the Temp >> spec. >> * See objectives & goals section for the expected deliverables >> as well as expected timing. >> * Timeline currently in the charter is only specific to temp >> spec related questions, needs updating to reflect this second >> part dealing with access. >> * Important to be in a position to adopt the charter and >> demonstrate a united front at the upcoming Council meeting. >> * Ideally have all comments in by Friday so that final version >> is produced over the weekend (Sat - Keith to produce updated >> version, Sunday - small team to review, Monday - final >> version to DT). >> * Ideally no changes to any of the sections of the charter >> after Tuesday. >> >> *Action item* *#3*: DT to review scope document as presented by >> Keith as soon as possible, ideally within the next 24 hours, but >> no later than by Friday 13 July COB and share any comments / >> concerns with the mailing list. >> >> *Action item #4*: Keith to produce updated version by Saturday >> 14 July, Sunday 15 July - small team to review updated version, >> Monday 16 July - proposed final version shared with DT >> >> *Remaining items*: >> >> * Who reviews EOI applications? Proposal to have Council >> leadership and SSC leadership (Susan, Chair and Maxim, >> Vice-Chair) review the EOIs. Agreement to move forward as >> proposed (Council leadership plus SSC leadership). How to >> deal with Chair affirmation? Consider having selection >> committee decide by full consensus as all SGs are represented >> through Council leadership and SSC chairs. Agreement to have >> Council leadership + SSC leadership make a recommendation by >> full consensus to the GNSO Council. >> * If there are concerns about any of the other items, please >> share those with the DT list (by Friday COB at the latest). >> >> *Action item #5*: If there are concerns about any of the other >> remaining items, please share those with the DT list (by Friday >> COB at the latest). >> >> */Marika Konings/* >> >> /Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) / >> >> /Email: marika.konings at icann.org / >> >> // >> >> /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/ >> >> /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses >> and visiting the GNSO >> Newcomer pages >> . >> / >> > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 22:36:23 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 15:36:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14/ appointment process In-Reply-To: References: <5EC56FB2-AFB2-435F-88EA-E8478B1DDC28@davecake.net> Message-ID: I have not received any other feedback. This has been discussed since March 2018. Other than David no one has raised any other concerns. I am going to inform CSG that we adopted this process. Farzaneh On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:30 AM Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > Dear Rafik, > > I totally concur based on the rationale given. > > Kind Regards > > Poncelet > > On 12 June 2018 at 07:26, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi , >> >> Thanks Farzaneh, I concurr with your explanations and rationale. >> @Ayden with regard to statement of Interest, I am thinking if we can put >> that as annex and maybe develop more like some set questions and so on. >> just to not emphasize one information compared to others. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 01:14, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> Thanks very much for sharing this, Farzaneh. Please find attached some >>> suggested edits. In particular, I would like to broadly define what >>> information should be contained within the Statement of Interest sought >>> from each candidate. There is no implied criticism here (to be clear, I am >>> not suggesting that past statements were inadequate) - just wanting to make >>> sure we capture certain information in the future in the interest of >>> transparency. I have also re-worded one sentence to do with the NCSG >>> consulting with members - all the CSG needs to know is we come to a >>> consensus as a stakeholder group, how is up to us... >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 11 June 2018 5:59 PM, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks David. >>> >>> CSG got back to us and they are happy with the procedure as is with a >>> minor change in the document I have attached. >>> >>> We need to discuss this in more detail. On the one hand, we cannot >>> change CSG internal procedure. How would we feel if they wanted to change >>> our internal procedure? On the other hand what you are raising has been an >>> issue within the community. >>> >>> As to NCA, NCA has an advisory role anyhow in the council as well.If it >>> doesn't provide an advantage (and let's face it, sometimes NCAs would work >>> against us or would work against both NCSG and CSG) then why not keep the >>> role advisory? >>> >>> I am not disagreeing. I am just putting these questions out there for >>> the veterans to tell us why we should not accept the procedure as is. >>> >>> When I was at the WT on GNSO bylaws changes, we insisted on giving NCA a >>> role in the empowered community when it came to appointments. This was >>> because as we argued, NCA could take you out of a deadlock. We argued the >>> same here, but CSG did not accept the argument. Considering that NomCom >>> appointments recently to the GNSO have been almost disasterous (for example >>> they appointed a government person to GNSO!!) I wonder if we want them >>> fully involved with the process. >>> >>> We might continue this discussion with CSG depending on the feedback I >>> receive here, so please keep the feedback coming, but please also provide >>> solutions that can be a middle way of what they want and what we want. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:30 PM, David Cake wrote: >>> >>>> My apologies for taking a while to comment on this. >>>> >>>> I admit to disliking this draft, it has significantly changed from the >>>> old procedure and none of the changes seem positive to me. >>>> >>>> The NCA is effectively rendered irrelevant. Included as an adviser is >>>> meaningless, as far as I can tell. While the NCA offers no particular >>>> advantage to NCSG, I think it is a definite step back in terms of creating >>>> an open procedure. . >>>> >>>> And it effectively removes the vote of individual councillors entirely. >>>> NCSG only reluctantly adopted binding councillors individual votes as a >>>> counter tactic to the CSG, and this procedure enshrines that permanently, >>>> effectively saying there is no hope that the CSG will have any internal >>>> democracy, so we shouldn?t bother with the potential for it. And it >>>> entirely lacks any procedure for coming to an outcome if full consensus >>>> can?t be found, other than rinse and repeat. >>>> >>>> If it was to be adopted, we would at least need a new procedure to >>>> determine how leadership consensus will be determined, if there is a >>>> minority opinion. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27 Mar 2018, at 10:31 am, farzaneh badii >>>> wrote: >>>> all >>>> >>>> here is the second draft of board appointment procedure. CSG accepted >>>> NCA to be involved with the process but have an advisory role. It also >>>> accepted to have elections but vote as a block (NCSG and CSG) >>>> >>>> >>>> Let me know what you think. >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Jul 14 12:02:06 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 18:02:06 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [proposed comment] SSAC2 Review: Assessment Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, We got another draft comment to review soon. I thin the date for submission is the 27th July. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tomslin Samme-Nlar Date: Sat, Jul 14, 2018, 4:40 PM Subject: [proposed comment] SSAC2 Review: Assessment Report To: ncsg-discuss Cc: Joanna Kulesza , Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com> Dear all, In response to the call for comments on the SSAC2 review assessment report, Joanna and myself have prepared a draft response and you can find it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit Please consider reviewing the proposed comment and share your feedback either on the document or here. Regards, ---- Tomslin Samme-Nlar *LinkedIn:* tomslin *| Twitter:* @tomsleen On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 at 09:18, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > in addition to public comments, we have also a request for community input > on the assessment report for SSAC2 review. The deadline for submission is > 20th July. This will be the first opportunity to give input on SSAC review, > while there was a survey previously. Those reviews are important as an > accountability mechanism and a way to improve at organizational and > structural level. > > We should work on comment for this consultation > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit. > Like for public comments, we can have a group of drafters to work on this > input. please let me offlist if you want to volunteer. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Sun Jul 15 06:49:23 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 11:49:23 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14/ appointment process In-Reply-To: References: <5EC56FB2-AFB2-435F-88EA-E8478B1DDC28@davecake.net> Message-ID: <82BD6ED4-86FD-40A1-92C4-A3CB113D40F5@davecake.net> While clearly no one else sees the issue here - I think we still need to discuss the possibility that without some change in wording, this is literally probably not legal. As discussed previously, as an agreement between two SGs, it is absolutely fine. But if does not fall back to the old procedure when consensus cannot be reached, then it tries to change the definition of the voting franchise (which is defined in the bylaws). David > On 14 Jul 2018, at 3:36 am, farzaneh badii wrote: > > I have not received any other feedback. This has been discussed since March 2018. Other than David no one has raised any other concerns. I am going to inform CSG that we adopted this process. > > Farzaneh > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:30 AM Poncelet Ileleji > wrote: > Dear Rafik, > > I totally concur based on the rationale given. > > Kind Regards > > Poncelet > > On 12 June 2018 at 07:26, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > Hi , > > Thanks Farzaneh, I concurr with your explanations and rationale. > @Ayden with regard to statement of Interest, I am thinking if we can put that as annex and maybe develop more like some set questions and so on. just to not emphasize one information compared to others. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 01:14, Ayden F?rdeline > a ?crit : > Thanks very much for sharing this, Farzaneh. Please find attached some suggested edits. In particular, I would like to broadly define what information should be contained within the Statement of Interest sought from each candidate. There is no implied criticism here (to be clear, I am not suggesting that past statements were inadequate) - just wanting to make sure we capture certain information in the future in the interest of transparency. I have also re-worded one sentence to do with the NCSG consulting with members - all the CSG needs to know is we come to a consensus as a stakeholder group, how is up to us... > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 11 June 2018 5:59 PM, farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> Thanks David. >> >> CSG got back to us and they are happy with the procedure as is with a minor change in the document I have attached. >> >> We need to discuss this in more detail. On the one hand, we cannot change CSG internal procedure. How would we feel if they wanted to change our internal procedure? On the other hand what you are raising has been an issue within the community. >> >> As to NCA, NCA has an advisory role anyhow in the council as well.If it doesn't provide an advantage (and let's face it, sometimes NCAs would work against us or would work against both NCSG and CSG) then why not keep the role advisory? >> >> I am not disagreeing. I am just putting these questions out there for the veterans to tell us why we should not accept the procedure as is. >> >> When I was at the WT on GNSO bylaws changes, we insisted on giving NCA a role in the empowered community when it came to appointments. This was because as we argued, NCA could take you out of a deadlock. We argued the same here, but CSG did not accept the argument. Considering that NomCom appointments recently to the GNSO have been almost disasterous (for example they appointed a government person to GNSO!!) I wonder if we want them fully involved with the process. >> >> We might continue this discussion with CSG depending on the feedback I receive here, so please keep the feedback coming, but please also provide solutions that can be a middle way of what they want and what we want. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:30 PM, David Cake > wrote: >> My apologies for taking a while to comment on this. >> >> I admit to disliking this draft, it has significantly changed from the old procedure and none of the changes seem positive to me. >> >> The NCA is effectively rendered irrelevant. Included as an adviser is meaningless, as far as I can tell. While the NCA offers no particular advantage to NCSG, I think it is a definite step back in terms of creating an open procedure. . >> >> And it effectively removes the vote of individual councillors entirely. NCSG only reluctantly adopted binding councillors individual votes as a counter tactic to the CSG, and this procedure enshrines that permanently, effectively saying there is no hope that the CSG will have any internal democracy, so we shouldn?t bother with the potential for it. And it entirely lacks any procedure for coming to an outcome if full consensus can?t be found, other than rinse and repeat. >> >> If it was to be adopted, we would at least need a new procedure to determine how leadership consensus will be determined, if there is a minority opinion. >> >> David >> >> >>> On 27 Mar 2018, at 10:31 am, farzaneh badii > wrote: >>> all >>> >>> here is the second draft of board appointment procedure. CSG accepted NCA to be involved with the process but have an advisory role. It also accepted to have elections but vote as a block (NCSG and CSG) >>> >>> >>> Let me know what you think. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > www.ymca.gm > http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From dave at davecake.net Sun Jul 15 06:58:40 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 11:58:40 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14/ appointment process In-Reply-To: <82BD6ED4-86FD-40A1-92C4-A3CB113D40F5@davecake.net> References: <5EC56FB2-AFB2-435F-88EA-E8478B1DDC28@davecake.net> <82BD6ED4-86FD-40A1-92C4-A3CB113D40F5@davecake.net> Message-ID: <0BE025A8-6041-45D3-8412-519D47F97CA9@davecake.net> To clarify - is this agreement simply an agreement between two SGs (in which case it can?t change the way the election works, but is otherwise fine) or is it intended to replace the existing election procedure (in which case, it attempts to redefine the voting franchise from the bylaws, which is problematic). David > On 15 Jul 2018, at 11:49 am, David Cake wrote: > > Signed PGP part > While clearly no one else sees the issue here - I think we still need to discuss the possibility that without some change in wording, this is literally probably not legal. > > As discussed previously, as an agreement between two SGs, it is absolutely fine. But if does not fall back to the old procedure when consensus cannot be reached, then it tries to change the definition of the voting franchise (which is defined in the bylaws). > > David > >> On 14 Jul 2018, at 3:36 am, farzaneh badii > wrote: >> >> I have not received any other feedback. This has been discussed since March 2018. Other than David no one has raised any other concerns. I am going to inform CSG that we adopted this process. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:30 AM Poncelet Ileleji > wrote: >> Dear Rafik, >> >> I totally concur based on the rationale given. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Poncelet >> >> On 12 June 2018 at 07:26, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >> Hi , >> >> Thanks Farzaneh, I concurr with your explanations and rationale. >> @Ayden with regard to statement of Interest, I am thinking if we can put that as annex and maybe develop more like some set questions and so on. just to not emphasize one information compared to others. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 ? 01:14, Ayden F?rdeline > a ?crit : >> Thanks very much for sharing this, Farzaneh. Please find attached some suggested edits. In particular, I would like to broadly define what information should be contained within the Statement of Interest sought from each candidate. There is no implied criticism here (to be clear, I am not suggesting that past statements were inadequate) - just wanting to make sure we capture certain information in the future in the interest of transparency. I have also re-worded one sentence to do with the NCSG consulting with members - all the CSG needs to know is we come to a consensus as a stakeholder group, how is up to us... >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 11 June 2018 5:59 PM, farzaneh badii > wrote: >> >>> Thanks David. >>> >>> CSG got back to us and they are happy with the procedure as is with a minor change in the document I have attached. >>> >>> We need to discuss this in more detail. On the one hand, we cannot change CSG internal procedure. How would we feel if they wanted to change our internal procedure? On the other hand what you are raising has been an issue within the community. >>> >>> As to NCA, NCA has an advisory role anyhow in the council as well.If it doesn't provide an advantage (and let's face it, sometimes NCAs would work against us or would work against both NCSG and CSG) then why not keep the role advisory? >>> >>> I am not disagreeing. I am just putting these questions out there for the veterans to tell us why we should not accept the procedure as is. >>> >>> When I was at the WT on GNSO bylaws changes, we insisted on giving NCA a role in the empowered community when it came to appointments. This was because as we argued, NCA could take you out of a deadlock. We argued the same here, but CSG did not accept the argument. Considering that NomCom appointments recently to the GNSO have been almost disasterous (for example they appointed a government person to GNSO!!) I wonder if we want them fully involved with the process. >>> >>> We might continue this discussion with CSG depending on the feedback I receive here, so please keep the feedback coming, but please also provide solutions that can be a middle way of what they want and what we want. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:30 PM, David Cake > wrote: >>> My apologies for taking a while to comment on this. >>> >>> I admit to disliking this draft, it has significantly changed from the old procedure and none of the changes seem positive to me. >>> >>> The NCA is effectively rendered irrelevant. Included as an adviser is meaningless, as far as I can tell. While the NCA offers no particular advantage to NCSG, I think it is a definite step back in terms of creating an open procedure. . >>> >>> And it effectively removes the vote of individual councillors entirely. NCSG only reluctantly adopted binding councillors individual votes as a counter tactic to the CSG, and this procedure enshrines that permanently, effectively saying there is no hope that the CSG will have any internal democracy, so we shouldn?t bother with the potential for it. And it entirely lacks any procedure for coming to an outcome if full consensus can?t be found, other than rinse and repeat. >>> >>> If it was to be adopted, we would at least need a new procedure to determine how leadership consensus will be determined, if there is a minority opinion. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>>> On 27 Mar 2018, at 10:31 am, farzaneh badii > wrote: >>>> all >>>> >>>> here is the second draft of board appointment procedure. CSG accepted NCA to be involved with the process but have an advisory role. It also accepted to have elections but vote as a block (NCSG and CSG) >>>> >>>> >>>> Let me know what you think. >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 >> Fax:(220) 4390793 >> Cell:(220) 9912508 >> Skype: pons_utd >> www.ymca.gm >> http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ >> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ >> www.waigf.org >> www,insistglobal.com >> www.npoc.org >> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 14:37:44 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 20:37:44 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call 17th July In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I am sharing the draft agenda for our next policy call. You may suggest some items for discussion. I do believe we will spend more time on EPDP, at least to give updates to members about the charter, selection process and start preparing for the EPDP process itself in term of substance. I. Roll call/Introduction II. GNSO Council Call Preparation - Council agenda: *https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-19jul18-en.pdf * III. Policy Update - Planning public comments responses: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public & list of volunteers https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 - Policy topics: * Update from working groups, review teams. IV. Misc - anything to add Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 15 15:49:13 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 08:49:13 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: <7UNj3Jud03n8abGBthWobkxdLZcWUUuY9Rr2SBK1FbqlT-wrTCFHF7DmFuHr67Nfgq7EaFTSVzWGSXbW5p6Dj-LDHqH0S7pIW-55h8PtbMc=@ferdeline.com> Hi all, Just a reminder: the deadline for submission of comments is in 24 hours time; I hope that we can submit this comment before the deadline passes. Thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 13 July 2018 3:39 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > I'd like to add a visa paragraph if not added already. I can do it today. > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:28 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Hi Tatiana, >> >> I did accept all of your edits, however there were subsequently a number of other edits that came in, so the document might be a little different to what you reviewed. While in my opinion none run contrary to the original sentiment, it might be a good idea to give it one final review! >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 13 July 2018 11:51 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: >> >>> All, >>> I saw that Ayden resolved all my comments so I am supposingly fine with the document although I would love to give it a kinda final look! Am now at WHOIS session at Council of Europe octopus conference and I brought no laptop to have no distractions. I will check the document again (just in case because I believe my concerns and comments were addressed) this evening once I get home ? hope it?s okay. >>> Cheers, >>> Tanya >>> >>> On Fri 13. Jul 2018 at 11:43, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> I resolved the comments/edits that came in. None were contentious. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 13 July 2018 11:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Farell, >>>>> >>>>> I don't recall resolving or editing this week that draft. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:58 PM Farell FOLLY wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot see any comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on another/wrong version?) >>>>>> >>>>>> @__f_f__ >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we have a public comment draft to review asap >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 >>>>>>> Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment >>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel Support Guidelines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. so please review and share your comments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sun Jul 15 16:31:22 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 09:31:22 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Updated Scope for Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d649330-fb64-5e5a-99f1-1417a0a9f401@mail.utoronto.ca> I am forwarding this new version received from Keith yesterday. Please do not edit the documents he sent.? I also attach my edits on his document...hard to keep track of this document, I found a bunch of new things to object to, and cannot tell anymore whether I already commented and was ignored, or what. It is called July 15 version, v2spedits.? Please get back to me asap with further comments, Keith is working on it today.... Cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Updated Scope for Review Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 15:34:26 +0000 From: Drazek, Keith To: PMcGrady at winston.com , stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca , susankpolicy at gmail.com CC: Donna.Austin at team.neustar , marika.konings at icann.org , caitlin.tubergen at icann.org , haforrestesq at gmail.com , rafik.dammak at gmail.com Hi Paul, Stephanie and Susan, Attached is the updated scope document for your review. I have attached a redline version, a clean version, and the two sets of comments received from Stephanie and Darcy, both of which I?ve attempted to incorporate. The one comment from Darcy that I did not incorporate was a request to be more explicit about the timing of initiating discussions on an Access Model ? to be at the time of publication of the Initial Report, rather than a less explicit trigger of answering the gating questions. You can see her comments in the attached. Otherwise, I think the edits are good and do not substantially or materially impact the previous draft. Please note any concerns, issues or suggested edits ASAP so we can send the final stable draft to the DT by Sunday night. I?m hoping this is our last pass at this! Thanks in advance, Keith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Updated Scope Section 10 July 2018 -- Proposed Clean Draft v2 - Southwell comments.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 35626 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Updated Scope Section 10 July 2018 -- Proposed Clean Draft v1spedits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 36949 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Updated Scope Section 14 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 32135 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Updated Scope Section 14 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits Clean.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 30078 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Proposed Clean Draft v2spedits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 49440 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 20:01:13 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 13:01:13 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: <7UNj3Jud03n8abGBthWobkxdLZcWUUuY9Rr2SBK1FbqlT-wrTCFHF7DmFuHr67Nfgq7EaFTSVzWGSXbW5p6Dj-LDHqH0S7pIW-55h8PtbMc=@ferdeline.com> References: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> <7UNj3Jud03n8abGBthWobkxdLZcWUUuY9Rr2SBK1FbqlT-wrTCFHF7DmFuHr67Nfgq7EaFTSVzWGSXbW5p6Dj-LDHqH0S7pIW-55h8PtbMc=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I made all the additions on visa. And am fine with the doc On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:49 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi all, > > Just a reminder: the deadline for submission of comments is in 24 hours > time; I hope that we can submit this comment before the deadline passes. > > Thanks, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 13 July 2018 3:39 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > I'd like to add a visa paragraph if not added already. I can do it today. > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:28 AM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> Hi Tatiana, >> >> I did accept all of your edits, however there were subsequently a number >> of other edits that came in, so the document might be a little different to >> what you reviewed. While in my opinion none run contrary to the original >> sentiment, it might be a good idea to give it one final review! >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 13 July 2018 11:51 AM, Tatiana Tropina >> wrote: >> >> All, >> I saw that Ayden resolved all my comments so I am supposingly fine with >> the document although I would love to give it a kinda final look! Am now at >> WHOIS session at Council of Europe octopus conference and I brought no >> laptop to have no distractions. I will check the document again (just in >> case because I believe my concerns and comments were addressed) this >> evening once I get home ? hope it?s okay. >> Cheers, >> Tanya >> >> On Fri 13. Jul 2018 at 11:43, Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> I resolved the comments/edits that came in. None were contentious. >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 13 July 2018 11:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi Farell, >>> >>> I don't recall resolving or editing this week that draft. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:58 PM Farell FOLLY >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Rafik, >>>> >>>> I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot see >>>> any comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on >>>> another/wrong version?) >>>> >>>> @__f_f__ >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> >>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> we have a public comment draft to review asap >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>> Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 >>>> Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment >>>> To: ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel >>>> Support Guidelines: >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>> the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. so >>>> please review and share your comments. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- > Farzaneh > > > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 20:05:35 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 19:05:35 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> <7UNj3Jud03n8abGBthWobkxdLZcWUUuY9Rr2SBK1FbqlT-wrTCFHF7DmFuHr67Nfgq7EaFTSVzWGSXbW5p6Dj-LDHqH0S7pIW-55h8PtbMc=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Ayden, thanks a lot for your work! I see that my corrections were accepted, so I am fine with the submission of the comment. Cheers, Tanya On 15 July 2018 at 19:01, farzaneh badii wrote: > I made all the additions on visa. And am fine with the doc > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:49 AM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Just a reminder: the deadline for submission of comments is in 24 hours >> time; I hope that we can submit this comment before the deadline passes. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 13 July 2018 3:39 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> I'd like to add a visa paragraph if not added already. I can do it today. >> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:28 AM Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Tatiana, >>> >>> I did accept all of your edits, however there were subsequently a number >>> of other edits that came in, so the document might be a little different to >>> what you reviewed. While in my opinion none run contrary to the original >>> sentiment, it might be a good idea to give it one final review! >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 13 July 2018 11:51 AM, Tatiana Tropina >>> wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> I saw that Ayden resolved all my comments so I am supposingly fine with >>> the document although I would love to give it a kinda final look! Am now at >>> WHOIS session at Council of Europe octopus conference and I brought no >>> laptop to have no distractions. I will check the document again (just in >>> case because I believe my concerns and comments were addressed) this >>> evening once I get home ? hope it?s okay. >>> Cheers, >>> Tanya >>> >>> On Fri 13. Jul 2018 at 11:43, Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I resolved the comments/edits that came in. None were contentious. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 13 July 2018 11:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Farell, >>>> >>>> I don't recall resolving or editing this week that draft. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:58 PM Farell FOLLY >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot see >>>>> any comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on >>>>> another/wrong version?) >>>>> >>>>> @__f_f__ >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards >>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> we have a public comment draft to review asap >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>>> Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 >>>>> Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment >>>>> To: ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel >>>>> Support Guidelines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/ >>>>> 1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. so >>>>> please review and share your comments. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> >> >> -- > Farzaneh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sun Jul 15 20:34:16 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 13:34:16 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call 17th July In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We will need time to discuss what we are going to do about the EPDP.? Keith is not accepting my [late] comments.? I think it is most unfortunate, because while some of them are controversial (e.g. whether to dump the IPC/BC section J or not), some are simply better wording to remove errors and ambiguity. However, so be it. I think he may have a look at them this afternoon. An important point is that I think the decision to move on with the access model portion of the charter should be a vote at Council, not "consensus" in the working group.? We are so outnumbered by the ACs now that they will be moving on the discuss the access model immediately. cheers Stephanie On 2018-07-15 07:37, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > I am sharing the draft agenda for our next policy call. You may > suggest some items for discussion. I do believe we will spend more > time on EPDP,? at least to give updates to members about the charter, > selection process and start preparing for the EPDP process itself in > term of substance. > > I. Roll call/Introduction > II. GNSO Council Call Preparation > > * Council agenda: > _https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-19jul18-en.pdf_ > > III. Policy Update > - Planning public comments responses: > https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public &?list of volunteers > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 > > - Policy topics: > ? * Update from working groups, review teams. > > IV. Misc > ? ?- anything to add > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 02:35:01 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:35:01 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call 17th July In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, Thanks for the comments. I think that is clear and indicated that we will spend more time in EPDP :) Best, Rafik Le lun. 16 juil. 2018 ? 02:34, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > We will need time to discuss what we are going to do about the EPDP. > Keith is not accepting my [late] comments. I think it is most unfortunate, > because while some of them are controversial (e.g. whether to dump the > IPC/BC section J or not), some are simply better wording to remove errors > and ambiguity. However, so be it. I think he may have a look at them this > afternoon. > > An important point is that I think the decision to move on with the access > model portion of the charter should be a vote at Council, not "consensus" > in the working group. We are so outnumbered by the ACs now that they will > be moving on the discuss the access model immediately. > > cheers Stephanie > > > On 2018-07-15 07:37, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am sharing the draft agenda for our next policy call. You may suggest > some items for discussion. I do believe we will spend more time on EPDP, > at least to give updates to members about the charter, selection process > and start preparing for the EPDP process itself in term of substance. > > I. Roll call/Introduction > II. GNSO Council Call Preparation > > - Council agenda: *https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-19jul18-en.pdf > * > > III. Policy Update > - Planning public comments responses: > https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public & list of volunteers > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2018 > > - Policy topics: > * Update from working groups, review teams. > > IV. Misc > - anything to add > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 02:53:56 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:53:56 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> <7UNj3Jud03n8abGBthWobkxdLZcWUUuY9Rr2SBK1FbqlT-wrTCFHF7DmFuHr67Nfgq7EaFTSVzWGSXbW5p6Dj-LDHqH0S7pIW-55h8PtbMc=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: hi all, The document is finalized and we have 24hours before the deadline, it was also reviewed by several PC members and their edits/comments resolved. if I don't hear strong objections in coming hours, the document will be considered as endorsed and submitted. Best, Rafik Le lun. 16 juil. 2018 ? 02:06, Tatiana Tropina a ?crit : > Ayden, > thanks a lot for your work! I see that my corrections were accepted, so I > am fine with the submission of the comment. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On 15 July 2018 at 19:01, farzaneh badii wrote: > >> I made all the additions on visa. And am fine with the doc >> >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:49 AM Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Just a reminder: the deadline for submission of comments is in 24 hours >>> time; I hope that we can submit this comment before the deadline passes. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 13 July 2018 3:39 PM, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>> I'd like to add a visa paragraph if not added already. I can do it >>> today. >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:28 AM Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Tatiana, >>>> >>>> I did accept all of your edits, however there were subsequently a >>>> number of other edits that came in, so the document might be a little >>>> different to what you reviewed. While in my opinion none run contrary to >>>> the original sentiment, it might be a good idea to give it one final review! >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 13 July 2018 11:51 AM, Tatiana Tropina >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> All, >>>> I saw that Ayden resolved all my comments so I am supposingly fine with >>>> the document although I would love to give it a kinda final look! Am now at >>>> WHOIS session at Council of Europe octopus conference and I brought no >>>> laptop to have no distractions. I will check the document again (just in >>>> case because I believe my concerns and comments were addressed) this >>>> evening once I get home ? hope it?s okay. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Tanya >>>> >>>> On Fri 13. Jul 2018 at 11:43, Ayden F?rdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I resolved the comments/edits that came in. None were contentious. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 13 July 2018 11:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Farell, >>>>> >>>>> I don't recall resolving or editing this week that draft. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:58 PM Farell FOLLY >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot see >>>>>> any comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on >>>>>> another/wrong version?) >>>>>> >>>>>> @__f_f__ >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> we have a public comment draft to review asap >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>>>> Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 >>>>>> Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment >>>>>> To: ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel >>>>>> Support Guidelines: >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. >>>>>> so please review and share your comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> -- >> Farzaneh >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 05:37:28 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 22:37:28 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Updated Scope for Review In-Reply-To: <8d649330-fb64-5e5a-99f1-1417a0a9f401@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <8d649330-fb64-5e5a-99f1-1417a0a9f401@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Stephanie Do you mean that the SP edits were not incorporated in Keith's doc (I don't have Keith's doc on 15 July, only 14)? and why on earth are all the IPC questions incorporated but Darcy's clarification was not? Stephanie, you probably need to comment on this doc on behalf of NCSG and not just SP edits. And this small group has two members from IPC/BC and you and Keith? Does this final draft go to the council for discussion? Farzaneh On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:31 AM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > I am forwarding this new version received from Keith yesterday. Please do > not edit the documents he sent. I also attach my edits on his > document...hard to keep track of this document, I found a bunch of new > things to object to, and cannot tell anymore whether I already commented > and was ignored, or what. It is called July 15 version, v2spedits. Please > get back to me asap with further comments, Keith is working on it today.... > > > Cheers Steph > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Updated Scope for Review > Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 15:34:26 +0000 > From: Drazek, Keith > To: PMcGrady at winston.com , > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > , susankpolicy at gmail.com > > CC: Donna.Austin at team.neustar > , marika.konings at icann.org > , > caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > , haforrestesq at gmail.com > , rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > Hi Paul, Stephanie and Susan, > > > > Attached is the updated scope document for your review. I have attached a > redline version, a clean version, and the two sets of comments received > from Stephanie and Darcy, both of which I?ve attempted to incorporate. > > > The one comment from Darcy that I did not incorporate was a request to be > more explicit about the timing of initiating discussions on an Access Model > ? to be at the time of publication of the Initial Report, rather than a > less explicit trigger of answering the gating questions. You can see her > comments in the attached. > > > > Otherwise, I think the edits are good and do not substantially or > materially impact the previous draft. Please note any concerns, issues or > suggested edits ASAP so we can send the final stable draft to the DT by > Sunday night. > > > > I?m hoping this is our last pass at this! > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Keith > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 16 06:00:46 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 23:00:46 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3edda913-fe32-8139-0b50-0d7e6c5c4de5@mail.utoronto.ca> Predictably enough, Susan is demanding exactly what I told Keith would happen...immediate development of the implementation of the access model SP -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 19:44:27 -0700 From: Susan Kawaguchi To: Drazek, Keith CC: McGrady, Paul D. , stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca , Donna.Austin at team.neustar , marika.konings at icann.org , caitlin.tubergen at icann.org , haforrestesq at gmail.com , rafik.dammak at gmail.com Hello All, I had intermittent access to the internet this weekend. A few comments. It appears that we use the term "Registration" data and "Registrant" data interchangeably in the document. I think it would be more concise to replace Registrant for Registration through out the document. Registration data is not at issue in the Temp Spec as it includes generated data, registry and registrar data etc. along with the Registrant data. I am also concerned with the 3rd deliverable, as we agreed to move from phase 2 on access to a staggered approach I think we should also give the working group the option of dealing with the access piece in the report when they feel it is appropriate. It imposes an unnecessary restriction. It also sets up the access issue to have absolutely no hope in being resolved before the Temp Spec expires. I somehow missed the fact that the ePDP would issue a Final report without actually doing all their work. From a purely structural issue is this possible. Usually when a Final report is issued the working group is done and it moves on to an implementation phase. Thank you for resolving the issue on the council voting I agree with Paul on this issue. Susan On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Drazek, Keith > wrote: Thanks very much Paul, I appreciate your response and agree with your view on this. The Council would need to vote to approve a motion objecting to the consensus of the WG. Otherwise the WG consensus would stand. Regards, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 9:45 PM, McGrady, Paul D. > wrote: > Thanks Keith. Your changes are fine with me so long as it is > clear that the Council doesn?t have to take a vote on whether or > not it objects. In other words, if the idea is that some portion > of the GNSO community does object to the notion that the gating > questions have been answered, they would need to bring a motion > objecting and get it past the Council. If that is the case, that > is fine with me. Thanks Keith! > > Best, > > Paul > > *From:* Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 6:20 PM > *To:* McGrady, Paul D. > > *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > ; susankpolicy at gmail.com > ; Donna.Austin at team.neustar > ; marika.konings at icann.org > ; caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > ; haforrestesq at gmail.com > ; rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > *Subject:* RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope > > Paul and Stephanie, > > Please see my responses and proposed path forward inline in red > font below. > > Thanks, > > Keith > > *From:* McGrady, Paul D. > > *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 4:29 PM > *To:* Drazek, Keith > > *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > ; susankpolicy at gmail.com > ; Donna.Austin at team.neustar > ; marika.konings at icann.org > ; caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > ; haforrestesq at gmail.com > ; rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope > *Importance:* High > > Thanks Keith. > > Regarding Stephanie?s proposal to change ?Does ICANN have > additional responsibilities to the data subject beyond what is > required by applicable law?? to ?ICANN as a data controller has > specific duties to the registrant or data subject under applicable > law. What other other legal or other obligations should be noted > by this EPDP WG in its analysis, including any duties that ICANN > might have in its role as administrator of a finite resource in > the Internet governance sphere?? > > Respectfully, I think the first sentence gets into answering > questions rather than posing them ? something we have tried to > avoid from the beginning. I think Stephanie?s statement in that > first new sentence is presupposed in the question which she > proposes to delete. I think we should leave ?Does ICANN have > additional responsibilities to the data subject beyond what is > required by applicable law?? and not include her first proposed > new sentence. > > Regarding the second sentence ?What other other legal or other > obligations should be noted by this EPDP WG in its analysis, > including any duties that ICANN might have in its role as > administrator of a finite resource in the Internet governance > sphere?? ? I simply have no idea what this question is getting at. > What finite resource? What is a governance sphere? Is there any > way to tighten this up so that it?s meaning is clear? Assuming we > can do that and that it is harmless when completed, I see no > reason not to tack it on. > > KEITH: How about rephrasing this sentence as: > > ?In addition to any specific duties ICANN may have as data > controller, what other obligations should be noted by this EPDP > WG, including any duties to registrants that are unique and > specific to ICANN?s role as the administrator of policies and > contracts governing gTLD domain names.? > > Lastly, and most importantly, I am opposed to this change: ?and > confirmation by the GNSO Council? seen here in its context: ?The > threshold for establishing ?answered? for the gating questions > shall be consensus of the WG and confirmation by the GNSO > Council.? Since the only way for the Council to confirm something > is through a vote, what this is proposing is that there must be a > formal Council vote before we take up unified access model (or > whatever Stephanie?s preferred term is). This is a de facto 2 > phase approach we have already argued over and agreed we wouldn?t > do. This is important to the IPC, so it is a change we really > can?t live with. I?m troubled to see this well settled argument > rearing its head again. We made a lot of good faith compromises > as a result of eliminating formal phasing ? including cooperating > with the ?gating questions? idea you introduced. This feels like a > 14^th hour bait and switch. I hope you will take it out. > > KEITH: How about changing the proposed affirmative approval > threshold to non-objection, as follows: > > ?Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above > have been answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary > Specification initial report. The threshold for establishing > ?answered? for the gating questions shall be consensus of the WG > and non-objection by the GNSO Council.? > > Can you please confirm receipt? Thanks! > > Best, > > Paul > > KEITH: I hope this helps bridge the remaining gap and gets us to a > final draft. If anyone has further thoughts or concerns, raise > them now. > > Paul and Stephanie, please respond so I can nail this down and > send to the DT list. > > Best, > > Keith > > *From:* Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 2:49 PM > *To:* McGrady, Paul D. > > *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > ; susankpolicy at gmail.com > ; Donna.Austin at team.neustar > ; marika.konings at icann.org > ; caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > ; haforrestesq at gmail.com > ; rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > *Subject:* RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope > > Hi all, > > Attached is the latest version of the red-line with Stephanie?s > edits incorporated. She and I just spoke on the phone and walked > through them, and we both realized there was some confusion this > morning around which version of Section J was most recent, but > that?s now straightened out. > > According to Stephanie, NCSG still has significant concerns about > any discussion of unified access/accreditation _models_ before > finalizing the Initial Report. I explained the gating questions > are designed to ensure we focus in the near term on the Temp Spec > and answer the necessary questions before designing something with > incomplete data. > > Paul and Susan, please review and let us know if these new edits > are acceptable or if you have concerns. My goal is still to get > this finalized tonight. The previous edits from the last version > are still showing, and I noted the new edits from Stephanie by > adding a comment box for each. > > Thanks in advance. > > Keith > > *From:* McGrady, Paul D. > > *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 1:36 PM > *To:* Drazek, Keith > > *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > ; susankpolicy at gmail.com > ; Donna.Austin at team.neustar > ; marika.konings at icann.org > ; caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > ; haforrestesq at gmail.com > ; rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope > > Thanks Keith. > > Since you are doing some after-deadline edits, some on the IPC > wonder whether the questions at c) are necessary gating questions > for discussion of a unified access model. I admit that this is > further in the weeds that I am comfortable, but I wonder if you > could look at those again and see if they can be removed from the > gating questions? If they can?t be removed, can I have a few > sentences on why they need to be gating questions that I can send > back to those who asked? > > Also, with after deadline changes form the NCUC, the IPC will need > to be able to see what the proposed changes will be before we can > agree that the draft charter is ?final.? 13^th hour changes are > sometimes benign or sometimes they are designed to try to get > through changes at the last minute under pressure that the small > team would not have agreed to earlier. So, I guess I will have to > reserve judgment on those until we see them. > > Thanks so much and hang in there! > > Best, > > Paul > > *From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith > via Epdp-dt > *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 9:28 AM > *To:* Drazek, Keith > > *Cc:* Epdp-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope > > Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun > and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. > > Thanks, > > Keith > > > On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > > wrote: > > Hi all, > > As discussed on Wednesday?s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached > is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. > > I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and > did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has > reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July > Council meeting. > > Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. > > Regards, > > Keith > > > > CLEAN.docx> > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. > If this message has been received in error, please delete it > without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended > to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this > message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice > contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be > used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under > applicable tax laws and regulations. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 09:43:07 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 02:43:07 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope In-Reply-To: <3edda913-fe32-8139-0b50-0d7e6c5c4de5@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <3edda913-fe32-8139-0b50-0d7e6c5c4de5@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Stephanie IPC questions which are now in section J, have to be 1. ideally removed 2.be moved to after data processing terms. If it cannot be turned into a group question or a member of the drafting objects to it, it should not be included. this is not a document that IPC can insert as many questions as it wants, it's a document that sets the scope of EPDP. and 3. questions reworded to reflect its a group question and everyone agreed on IPC has moved up many of the questions which are already asked under "systems for standardized access" up in section J and before Part 3. Is it even possible to respond to J, while Part 3 questions have not been answered? Part 3 asks important questions about data processing. For example it asks: "k1) For which data processing activities undertaken by registrars and registries as required by the Temporary Specification does ICANN determine the purpose and means of processing?" How is it possible, to come up with an ICANN "access" policy, which you will be doing if you discuss J - before asking which data processing ICANN determine the purpose and means of processing? How are you going to provide access under ICANN policy to data that is not actually collected because of ICANN purpose! What they did really in this document was to creep in "access and accreditation" into the primary phase of the scope. So section J has to be removed. If it is not possible, it has to move after Part 3. Most of section J can be addressed under "systems for standardized access". If that is not possible either, another thing that could be done is to bring all the question under section 3 before J. I have made changes to these questions and reworded them and attached them. *Your edits Stephanie do not expand the scope of the EPDP.* Unlike IPC questions, there are not so many additional questions that change the document and its scope. IPC's questions certainly are expanding the scope, putting answers instead of questions in the scope and we need to inform everyone about this. Also remind them that J1(B) which is still in the document, it was flagged (it was j6 at the time) and was not removed way before the deadline. Adding Caitlin's note on the doc: Note from 9 July Call re: addition of proposed j6: We need to be cautious about including this level of language in the charter. This does not recognize the importance of the gating questions that we have described or the tiered access approach. These individual use cases and requestors of data will be on a spectrum. The group needs to be cautious about including this level of language in the charter. We need to focus first and foremost on questions coming up with questions of legitimate use based on the various types of requests. GNSO council leaders asked the Board whether "UAM" should be in the scope of EPDP considering ICANN org came up with UAM, should they consider discussing it. Board gave one of its typical nonanswers: "As the EPDP makes progress on its policy recommendations it may more quickly find alignment with the larger community on the elements of the unified access model. If that is the case, we will work with the GNSO to align this work, as appropriate. If specific advice is received from the relevant DPAs, or the community is not aligned, then it may be more appropriate to address this matter together going forward. " https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to-council-24jun18-en.pdf ICANN keeps saying it is seeking legal clarity on issues relevant to access and if DPAs clarifications go against EPDP recommendations on access, it will of course follow DPAs advice. so in effect what ICANN is saying is that I have created a parallel process which I will be working on, you can do whatever you want in EPDP and then we can exchange notes. We could explain this during the drafting team meetings and see if they can be convinced that we get some time until some of the questions related to Access has been responded to by the DPAs. Thanks for all the work. Farzaneh On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:00 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Predictably enough, Susan is demanding exactly what I told Keith would > happen...immediate development of the implementation of the access model > SP > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope > Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 19:44:27 -0700 > From: Susan Kawaguchi > To: Drazek, Keith > CC: McGrady, Paul D. , > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > , Donna.Austin at team.neustar > , > marika.konings at icann.org > , caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > , > haforrestesq at gmail.com , > rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > Hello All, > > I had intermittent access to the internet this weekend. A few comments. > > It appears that we use the term "Registration" data and "Registrant" data > interchangeably in the document. I think it would be more concise to > replace Registrant for Registration through out the document. Registration > data is not at issue in the Temp Spec as it includes generated data, > registry and registrar data etc. along with the Registrant data. > > > I am also concerned with the 3rd deliverable, as we agreed to move from > phase 2 on access to a staggered approach I think we should also give the > working group the option of dealing with the access piece in the report > when they feel it is appropriate. It imposes an unnecessary restriction. > > It also sets up the access issue to have absolutely no hope in being > resolved before the Temp Spec expires. > > I somehow missed the fact that the ePDP would issue a Final report without > actually doing all their work. From a purely structural issue is this > possible. Usually when a Final report is issued the working group is done > and it moves on to an implementation phase. > > Thank you for resolving the issue on the council voting I agree with Paul > on this issue. > > > Susan > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Drazek, Keith > wrote: > >> Thanks very much Paul, I appreciate your response and agree with your >> view on this. The Council would need to vote to approve a motion objecting >> to the consensus of the WG. Otherwise the WG consensus would stand. >> >> Regards, >> Keith >> >> On Jul 15, 2018, at 9:45 PM, McGrady, Paul D. >> wrote: >> >> Thanks Keith. Your changes are fine with me so long as it is clear that >> the Council doesn?t have to take a vote on whether or not it objects. In >> other words, if the idea is that some portion of the GNSO community does >> object to the notion that the gating questions have been answered, they >> would need to bring a motion objecting and get it past the Council. If >> that is the case, that is fine with me. Thanks Keith! >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com ] >> >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 6:20 PM >> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. >> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca; susankpolicy at gmail.com; >> Donna.Austin at team.neustar; marika.konings at icann.org; >> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org; haforrestesq at gmail.com; >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> *Subject:* RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> >> >> Paul and Stephanie, >> >> >> >> Please see my responses and proposed path forward inline in red font >> below. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Keith >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* McGrady, Paul D. >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 4:29 PM >> *To:* Drazek, Keith >> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca; susankpolicy at gmail.com; >> Donna.Austin at team.neustar; marika.konings at icann.org; >> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org; haforrestesq at gmail.com; >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> *Importance:* High >> >> >> >> Thanks Keith. >> >> >> >> Regarding Stephanie?s proposal to change ?Does ICANN have additional >> responsibilities to the data subject beyond what is required by applicable >> law?? to ?ICANN as a data controller has specific duties to the >> registrant or data subject under applicable law. What other other legal >> or other obligations should be noted by this EPDP WG in its analysis, >> including any duties that ICANN might have in its role as administrator of >> a finite resource in the Internet governance sphere?? >> >> >> >> Respectfully, I think the first sentence gets into answering questions >> rather than posing them ? something we have tried to avoid from the >> beginning. I think Stephanie?s statement in that first new sentence is >> presupposed in the question which she proposes to delete. I think we >> should leave ?Does ICANN have additional responsibilities to the data >> subject beyond what is required by applicable law?? and not include her >> first proposed new sentence. >> >> >> >> Regarding the second sentence ?What other other legal or other >> obligations should be noted by this EPDP WG in its analysis, including any >> duties that ICANN might have in its role as administrator of a finite >> resource in the Internet governance sphere?? ? I simply have no idea what >> this question is getting at. What finite resource? What is a governance >> sphere? Is there any way to tighten this up so that it?s meaning is >> clear? Assuming we can do that and that it is harmless when completed, I >> see no reason not to tack it on. >> >> >> >> KEITH: How about rephrasing this sentence as: >> >> >> >> ?In addition to any specific duties ICANN may have as data controller, >> what other obligations should be noted by this EPDP WG, including any >> duties to registrants that are unique and specific to ICANN?s role as the >> administrator of policies and contracts governing gTLD domain names.? >> >> >> >> Lastly, and most importantly, I am opposed to this change: ?and >> confirmation by the GNSO Council? seen here in its context: ?The threshold >> for establishing ?answered? for the gating questions shall be consensus of >> the WG and confirmation by the GNSO Council.? Since the only way for the >> Council to confirm something is through a vote, what this is proposing is >> that there must be a formal Council vote before we take up unified access >> model (or whatever Stephanie?s preferred term is). This is a de facto 2 >> phase approach we have already argued over and agreed we wouldn?t do. This >> is important to the IPC, so it is a change we really can?t live with. I?m >> troubled to see this well settled argument rearing its head again. We made >> a lot of good faith compromises as a result of eliminating formal phasing ? >> including cooperating with the ?gating questions? idea you introduced. >> This feels like a 14th hour bait and switch. I hope you will take it >> out. >> >> >> >> KEITH: How about changing the proposed affirmative approval threshold >> to non-objection, as follows: >> >> >> >> ?Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above have been >> answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary Specification >> initial report. The threshold for establishing ?answered? for the gating >> questions shall be consensus of the WG and non-objection by the GNSO >> Council.? >> >> >> >> Can you please confirm receipt? Thanks! >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> KEITH: I hope this helps bridge the remaining gap and gets us to a final >> draft. If anyone has further thoughts or concerns, raise them now. >> >> >> >> Paul and Stephanie, please respond so I can nail this down and send to >> the DT list. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Keith >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com ] >> >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 2:49 PM >> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. >> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca; susankpolicy at gmail.com; >> Donna.Austin at team.neustar; marika.konings at icann.org; >> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org; haforrestesq at gmail.com; >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> *Subject:* RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Attached is the latest version of the red-line with Stephanie?s edits >> incorporated. She and I just spoke on the phone and walked through them, >> and we both realized there was some confusion this morning around which >> version of Section J was most recent, but that?s now straightened out. >> >> >> >> According to Stephanie, NCSG still has significant concerns about any >> discussion of unified access/accreditation *models* before finalizing >> the Initial Report. I explained the gating questions are designed to ensure >> we focus in the near term on the Temp Spec and answer the necessary >> questions before designing something with incomplete data. >> >> >> >> Paul and Susan, please review and let us know if these new edits are >> acceptable or if you have concerns. My goal is still to get this finalized >> tonight. The previous edits from the last version are still showing, and I >> noted the new edits from Stephanie by adding a comment box for each. >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> >> >> Keith >> >> >> >> *From:* McGrady, Paul D. >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 1:36 PM >> *To:* Drazek, Keith >> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca; susankpolicy at gmail.com; >> Donna.Austin at team.neustar; marika.konings at icann.org; >> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org; haforrestesq at gmail.com; >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> >> >> Thanks Keith. >> >> >> >> Since you are doing some after-deadline edits, some on the IPC wonder >> whether the questions at c) are necessary gating questions for discussion >> of a unified access model. I admit that this is further in the weeds that >> I am comfortable, but I wonder if you could look at those again and see if >> they can be removed from the gating questions? If they can?t be removed, >> can I have a few sentences on why they need to be gating questions that I >> can send back to those who asked? >> >> >> >> Also, with after deadline changes form the NCUC, the IPC will need to be >> able to see what the proposed changes will be before we can agree that the >> draft charter is ?final.? 13th hour changes are sometimes benign or >> sometimes they are designed to try to get through changes at the last >> minute under pressure that the small team would not have agreed to >> earlier. So, I guess I will have to reserve judgment on those until we see >> them. >> >> >> >> Thanks so much and hang in there! >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org >> ] *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 9:28 AM >> *To:* Drazek, Keith >> *Cc:* Epdp-dt at icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> >> >> Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we >> may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Keith >> >> >> On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> As discussed on Wednesday?s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the >> final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. >> >> >> >> I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best >> to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this >> is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. >> >> >> >> Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Keith >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this >> message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. >> Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable >> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of >> the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be >> used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties >> under applicable tax laws and regulations. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018-FB.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 37395 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 16 16:52:08 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 09:52:08 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope In-Reply-To: References: <3edda913-fe32-8139-0b50-0d7e6c5c4de5@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <605a8fa5-5455-4fa0-bcff-0dee58e231a4@mail.utoronto.ca> I know, I think after looking at how the IPC and the BC win all the time it comes down to one word:? Customers.? They are huge customers of the registrars, and that might explain why they are caving on this.? I will give it another try but they are jumping all over claiming we have agreed to this in the small group. Support from my fellow councillors would be helpful. The drafts and shift back and forth from google to word documents has made it extremely hard to track changes.? I had this problem on the EWG as well. See my detailed responses below in bold On 2018-07-16 02:43, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Stephanie > > > IPC questions which are now in section?J, ?have to be? 1. ideally > removed *I am ready to give up on that, tried again Sunday and > failed.? Suggest we put a footnote (derogation) in, and refer to it > every time they start work on the model once the EPDP starts.* 2.be > moved to after data processing terms. If it cannot be > turned into a group question or a member of the drafting objects to > it, it should not be included. this is not a document that IPC can > insert as many? questions?as it wants, it's a document that sets the > scope of EPDP. *Good idea to move it. will try that *and 3.?questions > reworded to?reflect its a group question and everyone agreed > on*Suggest some edits > * > > > IPC has moved up many of the questions which are already asked under > "systems for standardized access" up in section J and before Part 3. > Is it even possible to respond to J, while Part 3 questions have not > been answered? Part 3 asks important questions about data processing. > For example it asks: > > "k1) For which data processing activities undertaken by registrars and > registries as required by the Temporary Specification does ICANN > determine the purpose and means of processing?" > > How is it possible, to come up with an ICANN "access" policy, which > you will be doing if you discuss J - before asking which data > processing ICANN determine the purpose and means of processing? > *I am not sure that the order of these questions is important, but it is a good catch.? Needs to be noted or change the order* > > ?How are you going to provide access under ICANN policy to data that > is not actually collected because of ICANN purpose! > > > What they did really in this document was to creep in "access and > accreditation" into the primary phase of the scope. So section J has > to be removed. If it is not possible, it has to move after Part 3. > Most of section J can be addressed under "systems for standardized > access". *Agreed* > > > If that is not possible either, another thing that could be done is to > bring all the question under section 3 before J. > > > I have made changes to these questions and reworded them and attached > them. > > > _Your edits Stephanie do not expand the scope of the EPDP._?Unlike IPC > questions, there are not so many additional questions that change the > document and its scope. IPC's questions certainly are expanding the > scope,?putting answers instead of questions in the scope and we need > to inform everyone about this. > *I actually think that Keith acknowledged that my edits were helpful, and certainly Pam Little did.? Unfortunately Caitlin's notes anonymized comments. Hard to follow.* > > > Also remind them that J1(B) which is still in the document, it? was > flagged (it was j6 at the time) and was not removed way before the > deadline. Adding Caitlin's note on the doc: Note from 9 July Call re: > addition of proposed j6: We need to be cautious about including this > level of language in the charter.This does not recognize the > importance of the gating questions that we have described or the > tiered access approach.These individual use cases and requestors of > data will be on a spectrum.The group needs to be cautious about > including this level of language in the charter.We need to focus first > and foremost on questions coming up with questions of legitimate use > based on the various types of requests. > *OK will try that* > > > GNSO council?leaders asked the Board whether "UAM" should be in the > scope of EPDP considering ICANN org came up with UAM, should they > consider discussing it. Board gave one of its typical nonanswers: > > > "As the EPDP makes progress on its policy recommendations it may more > quickly find alignment with the larger community on the elements of > the unified access model. If that is the case, we will work with the > GNSO to align this work, as appropriate. If specific advice is > received from the relevant DPAs, or the community is not aligned, then > it may be more appropriate to address this matter together going > forward.?" > https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to-council-24jun18-en.pdf > > > ICANN keeps saying it is seeking legal clarity on issues relevant to > access and if DPAs clarifications go against EPDP recommendations on > access, it will of course follow DPAs advice. so in effect what ICANN > is saying is that I have created a parallel process which I will be > working on, you can do whatever you want in EPDP? and then we can > exchange notes. We could explain this during the drafting team > meetings and see if they can be convinced that we get some time until > some of the questions related to Access has been responded to by the > DPAs. > > > > Thanks for all the work. > > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:00 PM Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > Predictably enough, Susan is demanding exactly what I told Keith > would happen...immediate development of the implementation of the > access model > > SP > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope > Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 19:44:27 -0700 > From: Susan Kawaguchi > > To: Drazek, Keith > > CC: McGrady, Paul D. > , stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > > > , > Donna.Austin at team.neustar > , > marika.konings at icann.org > , > caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > , > haforrestesq at gmail.com > , > rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > > > Hello All, > > I had intermittent access to the internet this weekend.? A few > comments. > > It appears that we use the term "Registration" data and > "Registrant" data interchangeably in the document.? I think it > would be more concise to replace Registrant for Registration > through out the document.? Registration data is not at issue in > the Temp Spec as it includes generated data, registry and > registrar data etc. along with the Registrant data. > > > I am also concerned with the 3rd deliverable, as we agreed to move > from phase 2 on access to a staggered approach I think we should > also give the working group the option of dealing with the access > piece in the report when they feel it is appropriate. It imposes > an unnecessary restriction. > > It also sets up the access issue to have absolutely no hope in > being resolved before the Temp Spec expires. > > I somehow missed the fact that the ePDP would issue a Final report > without actually doing all their work.? From a purely structural > issue is this possible.? Usually when a Final report is issued the > working group is done and it moves on to an implementation phase. > > Thank you for resolving the issue on the council voting I agree > with Paul on this issue. > > > Susan > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Drazek, Keith > > wrote: > > Thanks very much Paul, I appreciate your response and agree > with your view on this. The Council would need to vote to > approve a motion objecting to the consensus of the WG. > Otherwise the WG consensus would stand. > > Regards, > Keith > > On Jul 15, 2018, at 9:45 PM, McGrady, Paul D. > > wrote: > >> Thanks Keith.? Your changes are fine with me so long as it is >> clear that the Council doesn?t have to take a vote on whether >> or not it objects.? In other words, if the idea is that some >> portion of the GNSO community does object to the notion that >> the gating questions have been answered, they would need to >> bring a motion objecting and get it past the Council.? If >> that is the case, that is fine with me.? Thanks Keith! >> >> Best, >> >> Paul >> >> *From:* Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com] >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 6:20 PM >> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. > > >> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> ; >> susankpolicy at gmail.com ; >> Donna.Austin at team.neustar ; >> marika.konings at icann.org ; >> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org >> ; haforrestesq at gmail.com >> ; rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> >> *Subject:* RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> Paul and Stephanie, >> >> Please see my responses and proposed path forward inline in >> red font below. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Keith >> >> *From:* McGrady, Paul D. > > >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 4:29 PM >> *To:* Drazek, Keith > > >> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> ; >> susankpolicy at gmail.com ; >> Donna.Austin at team.neustar ; >> marika.konings at icann.org ; >> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org >> ; haforrestesq at gmail.com >> ; rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> >> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> *Importance:* High >> >> Thanks Keith. >> >> Regarding Stephanie?s proposal to change ?Does ICANN have >> additional responsibilities to the data subject beyond what >> is required by applicable law?? to ?ICANN as a data >> controller has specific duties to the registrant or data >> subject under applicable law. What other other legal? or >> other obligations should be noted by this EPDP WG in its >> analysis, including any duties that ICANN might have in its >> role as administrator of a finite resource in the Internet >> governance sphere?? >> >> Respectfully, I think the first sentence gets into answering >> questions rather than posing them ? something we have tried >> to avoid from the beginning.? I think Stephanie?s statement >> in that first new sentence is presupposed in the question >> which she proposes to delete.? I think we should leave ?Does >> ICANN have additional responsibilities to the data subject >> beyond what is required by applicable law?? and not include >> her first proposed new sentence. >> >> Regarding the second sentence ?What other other legal or >> other obligations should be noted by this EPDP WG in its >> analysis, including any duties that ICANN might have in its >> role as administrator of a finite resource in the Internet >> governance sphere?? ? I simply have no idea what this >> question is getting at.? What finite resource?? What is a >> governance sphere?? Is there any way to tighten this up so >> that it?s meaning is clear?? Assuming we can do that and that >> it is harmless when completed, I see no reason not to tack it on. >> >> KEITH: How about rephrasing this sentence as: >> >> ?In addition to any specific duties ICANN may have as data >> controller, what other obligations should be noted by this >> EPDP WG, including any duties to registrants that are unique >> and specific to ICANN?s role as the administrator of policies >> and contracts governing gTLD domain names.? >> >> Lastly, and most importantly, I am opposed to this change:? >> ?and confirmation by the GNSO Council? seen here in its >> context:? ?The threshold for establishing ?answered? for the >> gating questions shall be consensus of the WG and >> confirmation by the GNSO Council.?? Since the only way for >> the Council to confirm something is through a vote, what this >> is proposing is that there must be a formal Council vote >> before we take up unified access model (or whatever >> Stephanie?s preferred term is).? This is a de facto 2 phase >> approach we have already argued over and agreed we wouldn?t >> do.? This is important to the IPC, so it is a change we >> really can?t live with.? I?m troubled to see this well >> settled argument rearing its head again.? We made a lot of >> good faith compromises as a result of eliminating formal >> phasing ? including cooperating with the ?gating questions? >> idea you introduced.? This feels like a 14^th hour bait and >> switch.? I hope you will take it out. >> >> KEITH:?? How about changing the proposed affirmative approval >> threshold to non-objection, as follows: >> >> ?Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions >> above have been answered and finalized in preparation for the >> Temporary Specification initial report. The threshold for >> establishing ?answered? for the gating questions shall be >> consensus of the WG and non-objection by the GNSO Council.? >> >> Can you please confirm receipt?? Thanks! >> >> Best, >> >> Paul >> >> KEITH: I hope this helps bridge the remaining gap and gets us >> to a final draft. If anyone has further thoughts or concerns, >> raise them now. >> >> Paul and Stephanie, please respond so I can nail this down >> and send to the DT list. >> >> Best, >> >> Keith >> >> *From:* Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com] >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 2:49 PM >> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. > > >> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> ; >> susankpolicy at gmail.com ; >> Donna.Austin at team.neustar ; >> marika.konings at icann.org ; >> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org >> ; haforrestesq at gmail.com >> ; rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> >> *Subject:* RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> Hi all, >> >> Attached is the latest version of the red-line with >> Stephanie?s edits incorporated. She and I just spoke on the >> phone and walked through them, and we both realized there was >> some confusion this morning around which version of Section J >> was most recent, but that?s now straightened out. >> >> According to Stephanie, NCSG still has significant concerns >> about any discussion of unified access/accreditation _models_ >> before finalizing the Initial Report. I explained the gating >> questions are designed to ensure we focus in the near term on >> the Temp Spec and answer the necessary questions before >> designing something with incomplete data. >> >> Paul and Susan, please review and let us know if these new >> edits are acceptable or if you have concerns. My goal is >> still to get this finalized tonight. The previous edits from >> the last version are still showing, and I noted the new edits >> from Stephanie by adding a comment box for each. >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> Keith >> >> *From:* McGrady, Paul D. > > >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 1:36 PM >> *To:* Drazek, Keith > > >> *Cc:* stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> ; >> susankpolicy at gmail.com ; >> Donna.Austin at team.neustar ; >> marika.konings at icann.org ; >> caitlin.tubergen at icann.org >> ; haforrestesq at gmail.com >> ; rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> >> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> Thanks Keith. >> >> Since you are doing some after-deadline edits, some on the >> IPC wonder whether the questions at c) are necessary gating >> questions for discussion of a unified access model.? I admit >> that this is further in the weeds that I am comfortable, but >> I wonder if you could look at those again and see if they can >> be removed from the gating questions?? If they can?t be >> removed, can I have a few sentences on why they need to be >> gating questions that I can send back to those who asked? >> >> Also, with after deadline changes form the NCUC, the IPC will >> need to be able to see what the proposed changes will be >> before we can agree that the draft charter is ?final.?? 13^th >> hour changes are sometimes benign or sometimes they are >> designed to try to get through changes at the last minute >> under pressure that the small team would not have agreed to >> earlier.? So, I guess I will have to reserve judgment on >> those until we see them. >> >> Thanks so much and hang in there! >> >> Best, >> >> Paul >> >> *From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf >> Of *Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 9:28 AM >> *To:* Drazek, Keith > > >> *Cc:* Epdp-dt at icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the >> gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Keith >> >> >> On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt >> > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> As discussed on Wednesday?s EPDP Drafting Team call, >> attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope >> section. >> >> I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy >> and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small >> group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval >> at the 19 July Council meeting. >> >> Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. >> >> Regards, >> >> Keith >> >> > Edits.docx> >> >> > CLEAN.docx> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> The contents of this message may be privileged and >> confidential. If this message has been received in error, >> please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this >> message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. >> Please do not disseminate this message without the permission >> of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not >> intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other >> taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and >> regulations. >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 16 16:53:41 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 09:53:41 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope In-Reply-To: <0ca481c3-d8cf-481c-bd0c-eb2ade507b5c.pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> References: <0ca481c3-d8cf-481c-bd0c-eb2ade507b5c.pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> Message-ID: <6872b64b-3ce6-9f7a-919b-868ddf860cfb@mail.utoronto.ca> Forwarding Pam's comments, they are helpful. SP -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:49:57 +0800 From: Pam Little Reply-To: Pam Little To: Epdp-dt at icann.org , marika.konings at icann.org , Drazek, Keith Hi Keith Many thanks to you?and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: "J2) Can the obligation to provide ?reasonable access? be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, ,without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. I also have a question regarding the?last paragraph in the final draft: /"The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." / The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 To:Epdp-dt at icann.org ; marika.konings at icann.org Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hello again everyone?. Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19^th . I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. Regards, Keith *From:* Drazek, Keith *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM *To:* Drazek, Keith *Cc:* Epdp-dt at icann.org; marika.konings at icann.org *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. Thanks, Keith On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > wrote: Hi all, As discussed on Wednesday?s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. Regards, Keith _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Updated Scope Section 15 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits v2 CLEAN+Pam.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 42374 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 00:51:06 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:51:06 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <70D67E85-9B6A-4649-9EB3-CF2E816B5639@benin2point0.org> <633f96ae-d2f9-a89f-2526-f3863427bc3e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: So I guess all council members will be going even the ones did not respond. I have to submit the names soon so if a council member not going let me know by tomorrow. Farzaneh On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM Farell FOLLY wrote: > OK See you all there. > > > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > > On 1 Jul 2018, at 19:42, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote: > > basically this happens at every meeting Farell, the secretariat checks > with SG leaders to get their list of who will be funded. This is our first > chance to substitute names if we know a councillor is not coming. > > Stephanie > On 2018-07-01 10:56, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Just for funded councilors. > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:21 AM Farell FOLLY > wrote: > >> I will be attending but in my own capacity and don?t need visa. What is >> exactly the purpose of this inquiry? Or is it intended to funded travellers >> only? >> >> Thanks. >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 29 Jun 2018, at 15:31, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Who is going to Barcelona? >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Terri Agnew >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in Barcelona in a >> timely fashion, please submit your ICANN63 Meeting database to >> gnso-secs at icann.org by *Wednesday, 18 July 2018.* >> >> A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the >> OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for >> confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. >> >> Please note that if you are *a GNSO supported traveler with a designated >> hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you*, >> please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. >> >> Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of >> fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the >> following into consideration: >> >> >> 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming >> travel to Barcelona. >> >> 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make >> sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel >> team to let them know you will need a visa. >> >> 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by >> case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day >> deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel >> as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa >> issues. >> >> 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours >> and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. >> >> 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN >> meeting venue. >> >> 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is >> Friday, 19 October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. >> >> 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be >> done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the >> ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. >> >> 8. *Privately Booked Reservations*: ICANN will not refund >> or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a >> replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel >> their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their >> reservation. >> >> >> Many thanks for your cooperation! >> >> >> With kind regards, >> >> *Terri * >> >> * ---* >> >> *Terri Agnew* >> >> Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> *Email:* terri.agnew at icann.org >> >> *Skype ID:* terri.agnew.icann >> >> >> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and >> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >> >> >> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO >> >> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ >> >> >> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> -- >> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> -- > Farzaneh > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 00:57:58 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 23:57:58 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <70D67E85-9B6A-4649-9EB3-CF2E816B5639@benin2point0.org> <633f96ae-d2f9-a89f-2526-f3863427bc3e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thanks a lot for the reminder, Farzaneh. Apparently, though I fixed the issues with the PC list by asking Maryam to send all emails to my gmail address, many emails got lost in SPAM or in the filters and never got retrieved. I am going to Barcelona, I am very sorry that I didn't see that email and I can't even find it anywhere in my inbox with the previous email address I used for the PC list. Apologies. Warm regards, Tanya On 16 July 2018 at 23:51, farzaneh badii wrote: > So I guess all council members will be going even the ones did not > respond. > > I have to submit the names soon so if a council member not going let me > know by tomorrow. > > > > > Farzaneh > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM Farell FOLLY > wrote: > >> OK See you all there. >> >> >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 1 Jul 2018, at 19:42, Stephanie Perrin > UTORONTO.CA> wrote: >> >> basically this happens at every meeting Farell, the secretariat checks >> with SG leaders to get their list of who will be funded. This is our first >> chance to substitute names if we know a councillor is not coming. >> >> Stephanie >> On 2018-07-01 10:56, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Just for funded councilors. >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:21 AM Farell FOLLY >> wrote: >> >>> I will be attending but in my own capacity and don?t need visa. What is >>> exactly the purpose of this inquiry? Or is it intended to funded travellers >>> only? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> @__f_f__ >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards >>> ____________________________________ >>> >>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>> www.africa2point0.org >>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29 Jun 2018, at 15:31, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Who is going to Barcelona? >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Terri Agnew >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in Barcelona in a >>> timely fashion, please submit your ICANN63 Meeting database to >>> gnso-secs at icann.org by *Wednesday, 18 July 2018.* >>> >>> A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the >>> OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for >>> confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. >>> >>> Please note that if you are *a GNSO supported traveler with a >>> designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically >>> secured for you*, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is >>> un-reimbursable. >>> >>> Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of >>> fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the >>> following into consideration: >>> >>> >>> 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming >>> travel to Barcelona. >>> >>> 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please >>> make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN >>> travel team to let them know you will need a visa. >>> >>> 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case >>> by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day >>> deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel >>> as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa >>> issues. >>> >>> 4. If possible please book direct travel >>> requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. >>> >>> 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN >>> meeting venue. >>> >>> 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is >>> Friday, 19 October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. >>> >>> 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be >>> done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the >>> ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. >>> >>> 8. *Privately Booked Reservations*: ICANN will not refund >>> or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a >>> replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel >>> their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their >>> reservation. >>> >>> >>> Many thanks for your cooperation! >>> >>> >>> With kind regards, >>> >>> *Terri * >>> >>> * ---* >>> >>> *Terri Agnew* >>> >>> Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator >>> >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>> *Email:* terri.agnew at icann.org >>> >>> *Skype ID:* terri.agnew.icann >>> >>> >>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and >>> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>> >>> >>> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO >>> >>> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ >>> >>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> -- >> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Jul 17 01:15:20 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:15:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <70D67E85-9B6A-4649-9EB3-CF2E816B5639@benin2point0.org> <633f96ae-d2f9-a89f-2526-f3863427bc3e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <2f01c0da-faa7-ea52-0545-583f364a2e77@kathykleiman.com> The same thing has happened to me, Tatiana. Many emails of late from NCSG have gone straight into SPAM, or been dropped altogether. On 7/16/2018 5:57 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > Thanks a lot for the reminder, Farzaneh. Apparently, though I fixed > the issues with the PC list by asking Maryam to send all emails to my > gmail?address, many emails got lost in SPAM or in the filters and > never got retrieved. I am going to Barcelona, I am very sorry that I > didn't see that email and I can't even find it anywhere in my inbox > with the previous email address I used for the PC list. Apologies. > Warm regards, > Tanya > > On 16 July 2018 at 23:51, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > So I guess all council members will be going even the ones did not > respond. > > I have to submit the names soon so if a council member not going > let me know by tomorrow. > > > > > Farzaneh > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM Farell FOLLY > > wrote: > > OK See you all there. > > > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > >> On 1 Jul 2018, at 19:42, Stephanie Perrin >> > > wrote: >> >> basically this happens at every meeting Farell, the >> secretariat checks with SG leaders to get their list of who >> will be funded.? This is our first chance to substitute names >> if we know a councillor is not coming. >> >> Stephanie >> >> On 2018-07-01 10:56, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> Just for funded councilors. >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:21 AM Farell FOLLY >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> I will be attending but in my own capacity and don?t >>> need visa. What is exactly the purpose of this inquiry? >>> Or is it intended to funded travellers only? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> @__f_f__ >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards >>> ____________________________________ >>> >>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>> www.africa2point0.org >>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 29 Jun 2018, at 15:31, farzaneh badii >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Who is going to Barcelona? >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>> From: Terri Agnew >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> >>>> In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in >>>> Barcelona in a timely fashion, please submit your >>>> ICANN63 Meeting database to gnso-secs at icann.org >>>> by *Wednesday, 18 July 2018.* >>>> >>>> A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa >>>> issues and the OFAC review. The deadline for >>>> submissions is critical to allow for confirmed >>>> reservation numbers as required for visa and travel >>>> arrangements. >>>> >>>> Please note that if you are *a GNSO supported traveler >>>> with a designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel >>>> room is automatically secured for you*, please DO NOT >>>> book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. >>>> >>>> Please note that when requesting travel support, in the >>>> interest of fairness and in light of budget >>>> restrictions?we would like you to take the following >>>> into consideration: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1.Respond?timely to ICANN Travel regarding your >>>> upcoming travel toBarcelona. >>>> >>>> 2.If you require a visa to enter the country, please >>>> make sure to acquire your visa immediately.?Please >>>> contact the ICANN travel team to let them know you will >>>> need a visa. >>>> >>>> 3.Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case >>>> by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added >>>> after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability, >>>> may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded >>>> traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to >>>> visa issues. >>>> >>>> 4.If possible please book?direct travel >>>> requests.?Detours and multi-stop trips are >>>> unfortunately not guaranteed. >>>> >>>> 5.Strictly limit your travel from your home to the >>>> ICANN meeting venue. >>>> >>>> 6.Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting >>>> is Friday, 19 October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. >>>> >>>> 7.If travelers want to extend their stay this must be >>>> done at their own expense and should contact the hotel >>>> directly once the ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent >>>> to them. >>>> >>>> 8./Privately Booked Reservations/:?ICANN will not >>>> refund or take over accommodations directly booked by >>>> the funded traveler. If a replacement has an existing >>>> hotel reservation, they will need to cancel their >>>> reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over >>>> their reservation. >>>> >>>> >>>> ?Many thanks for your cooperation! >>>> >>>> >>>> With kind regards, >>>> >>>> *Terri * >>>> >>>> *????????????---* >>>> >>>> *Terri Agnew* >>>> >>>> Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator >>>> >>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>> >>>> *Email:*terri.agnew at icann.org >>>> >>>> >>>> *Skype ID:*terri.agnew.icann >>>> >>>> >>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive >>>> courses?and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>> >>>> >>>> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO >>>> >>>> >>>> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: >>>> https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ >>>> >>>> >>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 01:19:10 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:19:10 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: <2f01c0da-faa7-ea52-0545-583f364a2e77@kathykleiman.com> References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <70D67E85-9B6A-4649-9EB3-CF2E816B5639@benin2point0.org> <633f96ae-d2f9-a89f-2526-f3863427bc3e@mail.utoronto.ca> <2f01c0da-faa7-ea52-0545-583f364a2e77@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Kathy - great to know I am not alone experiencing this. It drove me mad! Fixed it by sending all the copies to google email address. Now I hope nothing gets lost.... On 17 July 2018 at 00:15, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > The same thing has happened to me, Tatiana. Many emails of late from NCSG > have gone straight into SPAM, or been dropped altogether. > > On 7/16/2018 5:57 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Thanks a lot for the reminder, Farzaneh. Apparently, though I fixed the > issues with the PC list by asking Maryam to send all emails to my > gmail address, many emails got lost in SPAM or in the filters and never got > retrieved. I am going to Barcelona, I am very sorry that I didn't see that > email and I can't even find it anywhere in my inbox with the previous email > address I used for the PC list. Apologies. > Warm regards, > Tanya > > On 16 July 2018 at 23:51, farzaneh badii wrote: > >> So I guess all council members will be going even the ones did not >> respond. >> >> I have to submit the names soon so if a council member not going let me >> know by tomorrow. >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM Farell FOLLY >> wrote: >> >>> OK See you all there. >>> >>> >>> >>> @__f_f__ >>> >>> Best Regards >>> ____________________________________ >>> >>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>> www.africa2point0.org >>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1 Jul 2018, at 19:42, Stephanie Perrin >> O.CA> wrote: >>> >>> basically this happens at every meeting Farell, the secretariat checks >>> with SG leaders to get their list of who will be funded. This is our first >>> chance to substitute names if we know a councillor is not coming. >>> >>> Stephanie >>> On 2018-07-01 10:56, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> >>> Just for funded councilors. >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:21 AM Farell FOLLY >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I will be attending but in my own capacity and don?t need visa. What is >>>> exactly the purpose of this inquiry? Or is it intended to funded travellers >>>> only? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> @__f_f__ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> >>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29 Jun 2018, at 15:31, farzaneh badii >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Who is going to Barcelona? >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>> From: Terri Agnew >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> >>>> In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in Barcelona in a >>>> timely fashion, please submit your ICANN63 Meeting database to >>>> gnso-secs at icann.org by *Wednesday, 18 July 2018.* >>>> >>>> A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the >>>> OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for >>>> confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. >>>> >>>> Please note that if you are *a GNSO supported traveler with a >>>> designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically >>>> secured for you*, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is >>>> un-reimbursable. >>>> >>>> Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of >>>> fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the >>>> following into consideration: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your >>>> upcoming travel to Barcelona. >>>> >>>> 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please >>>> make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN >>>> travel team to let them know you will need a visa. >>>> >>>> 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case >>>> by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day >>>> deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel >>>> as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa >>>> issues. >>>> >>>> 4. If possible please book direct travel >>>> requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. >>>> >>>> 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the >>>> ICANN meeting venue. >>>> >>>> 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting >>>> is Friday, 19 October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. >>>> >>>> 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be >>>> done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the >>>> ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. >>>> >>>> 8. *Privately Booked Reservations*: ICANN will not >>>> refund or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. >>>> If a replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to >>>> cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their >>>> reservation. >>>> >>>> >>>> Many thanks for your cooperation! >>>> >>>> >>>> With kind regards, >>>> >>>> *Terri * >>>> >>>> * ---* >>>> >>>> *Terri Agnew* >>>> >>>> Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator >>>> >>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>> >>>> *Email:* terri.agnew at icann.org >>>> >>>> *Skype ID:* terri.agnew.icann >>>> >>>> >>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and >>>> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>> >>>> >>>> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO >>>> >>>> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ >>>> >>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 17 01:20:16 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:20:16 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: <7UNj3Jud03n8abGBthWobkxdLZcWUUuY9Rr2SBK1FbqlT-wrTCFHF7DmFuHr67Nfgq7EaFTSVzWGSXbW5p6Dj-LDHqH0S7pIW-55h8PtbMc=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, Was the document submitted? Many thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 16 July 2018 1:53 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi all, > > The document is finalized and we have 24hours before the deadline, it was also reviewed by several PC members and their edits/comments resolved. > if I don't hear strong objections in coming hours, the document will be considered as endorsed and submitted. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 16 juil. 2018 ? 02:06, Tatiana Tropina a ?crit : > >> Ayden, >> thanks a lot for your work! I see that my corrections were accepted, so I am fine with the submission of the comment. >> Cheers, >> Tanya >> >> On 15 July 2018 at 19:01, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> I made all the additions on visa. And am fine with the doc >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:49 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Just a reminder: the deadline for submission of comments is in 24 hours time; I hope that we can submit this comment before the deadline passes. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 13 July 2018 3:39 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd like to add a visa paragraph if not added already. I can do it today. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:28 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Tatiana, >>>>>> >>>>>> I did accept all of your edits, however there were subsequently a number of other edits that came in, so the document might be a little different to what you reviewed. While in my opinion none run contrary to the original sentiment, it might be a good idea to give it one final review! >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 13 July 2018 11:51 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> I saw that Ayden resolved all my comments so I am supposingly fine with the document although I would love to give it a kinda final look! Am now at WHOIS session at Council of Europe octopus conference and I brought no laptop to have no distractions. I will check the document again (just in case because I believe my concerns and comments were addressed) this evening once I get home ? hope it?s okay. >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Tanya >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri 13. Jul 2018 at 11:43, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I resolved the comments/edits that came in. None were contentious. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>> On 13 July 2018 11:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Farell, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't recall resolving or editing this week that draft. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:58 PM Farell FOLLY wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Rafik, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot see any comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on another/wrong version?) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @__f_f__ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>>>>>>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>>>>>>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>>>>>>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>>>>>>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> we have a public comment draft to review asap >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>>>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>>>>>>>>> Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment >>>>>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel Support Guidelines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>> the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. so please review and share your comments. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 17 01:37:36 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:37:36 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope In-Reply-To: <5cd484327fd349e18ad9e7cbbabd7e7d@verisign.com> References: <893f91de82ef4816a70ca72907f5d52b@verisign.com> <0ca481c3-d8cf-481c-bd0c-eb2ade507b5c.pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> <63ee6fe9bda7422aba8cd8af300f0302@winston.com> <34bbe72650fd46be90e2af5da209127d@verisign.com> <2f7e4d758c5a4362bad5f3621e7ece7b@winston.com> <842fbac1-3385-64aa-06c3-e7ce1cacb137@mail.utoronto.ca> <5cd484327fd349e18ad9e7cbbabd7e7d@verisign.com> Message-ID: The latest email from Keith; no, he won't entertain any changes to the scope that we send his way. Even though the requested changes were sent only a few hours after he sent through the supposed 'final' version to the entire drafting team. It's hard to comment by last Friday when we didn't know what changes were being sent his way off-list by others. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 17 July 2018 12:13 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt wrote: > Hi all, > > The current version of the scope document (attached) is the result of several weeks of work and substantial compromise, and, as discussed on our Wednesday Drafting Team call, the deadline for substantive comment was Friday. > > I worked over the weekend to incorporate the comments I received, doing my very best to find the right balance. > > I believe the scope section is as close as we will get without putting our Thursday vote at serious and certain risk. We are likely all equally unhappy with various parts of it, but sometimes that?s the nature of our work. > > I am finished with the scope document and it is now with Council leadership and staff for adding to the master Charter document. > > Thanks for your understanding. > > Regards, > > Keith > > From: Epdp-dt On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 5:54 PM > To: Stephanie Perrin > Cc: epdp-dt at icann.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope > > We are being fair and the BC has been objecting to the access piece being left off the scope of the ePDP from the start. We have been behind your proverbial 8-ball for years but it is not the time to unfairly focus on a piece of this issue and refuse to recognize the need for access. A second temp spec may be in order. > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> Lets be fair...we have been objecting to this parallel process from the get-go. As I said on the panel in Panama, there is a price to be paid for not recognizing the reality of data protection law, and refusing to move in time. We are now behind the proverbial 8-ball. That does not mean we can pull off a miracle here. >> >> Stephanie >> >> On 2018-07-16 17:25, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: >> >>> Thanks Ayden. >>> >>> Keith & Council Leadrship - The revised Section J has been in for days and days now, including on our last call and including during the call for comments which ended Friday. A last minute attempt to get it out endangers the entire Charter. I hope that we can stick with the work of the Small Team which the DT had plenty of time to review and comment upon and not let this process get derailed at the last minute. >>> >>> Best to all, >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> Paul D. McGrady >>> >>> Partner >>> >>> Winston & Strawn LLP >>> 35 W. Wacker Drive >>> Chicago, IL 60601-9703 >>> >>> D: +1 312-558-5963 >>> >>> F: +1 312-558-5700 >>> >>> [Bio](http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html) | [VCard](http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf) | [Email](mailto:pmcgrady at winston.com) | [winston.com](http://www.winston.com) >>> >>> [Winston & Strawn LLP] >>> >>> From: Ayden F?rdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com] >>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:21 PM >>> To: Drazek, Keith [](mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com) >>> Cc: McGrady, Paul D. [](mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com); pam.little at alibaba-inc.com; Epdp-dt at icann.org; marika.konings at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >>> >>> Thanks for your work here, Keith. >>> >>> I do not support the inclusion of Section J) in the EPDP's scope for two reasons. >>> >>> Firstly, this is because I do not believe it is possible to respond to the questions in Section J) until the questions in Part 3 have been answered. >>> >>> Part 3 asks important and relevant questions about data processing responsibilities. For example, k1) asks: "For which data processing activities undertaken by registrars and registries as required by the Temporary Specification does ICANN determine the purpose and means of processing?" How is it possible to come up with an ICANN 'access' policy, which we will be doing if we discuss it in J), before asking how ICANN determines the purpose and means of processing? How are we going to provide access under an ICANN policy to data that is not actually collected because of ICANN?s narrow mission and purpose? >>> >>> Secondly, we are aware that ICANN org is seeking "clarity" on issues related to access, and is engaging behind the scenes with Data Protection Authorities to receive their advice on how to proceed. This is a parallel process which ICANN org is not going to stop just because our EPDP is tackling the same questions; the Board told us much already on 24 June [1]. I think it is a more effective use of our time to not address this question until ICANN org has received and shared with us the DPA's advice, as their recommendations, as the enforcement bodies, are what will be followed anyway. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> [1] "As the EPDP makes progress on its policy recommendations it may more quickly find alignment with the larger community on the elements of the unified access model. If that is the case, we will work with the GNSO to align this work, as appropriate. If specific advice is received from the relevant DPAs, or the community is not aligned, then it may be more appropriate to address this matter together going forward." https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to-council-24jun18-en.pdf >>> >>> ICANN is saying: we want legal clarity on issues relevant to access, and if the DPA's clarifications go against the EPDP recommendations, we will follow the DPA's advice and impose it on you. In other words, ICANN org has created a parallel process which it is working on, we can do whatever we want in our EPDP, and then we can exchange notes and if we're not all aligned, ICANN org makes the decision. >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> >>> On 16 July 2018 5:57 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Pam and Paul, >>>> >>>> Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam?s edits and responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul?s suggested language below for Section J. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Keith >>>> >>>> From: McGrady, Paul D. >>>> >>>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM >>>> >>>> To: Pam Little ; Epdp-dt at icann.org; marika.konings at icann.org; Drazek, Keith >>>> >>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >>>> >>>> Hi Pam, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your proposed edits. However, I do think that they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous formulation. >>>> >>>> If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still think your proposed changes need some work. >>>> >>>> If we change to ?Can the obligation to provide ?reasonable access? be clarified or defined?? I think that leads us down the wrong path. J1 already focuses on clarifying and defining reasonable access. I think we could ask ?Can the obligation to provide ?reasonable access? be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model?? We lose the idea of harmonization, which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant result and try to avoid those outcomes. >>>> >>>> So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert. If we can?t get that, we would be OK with: >>>> >>>> ?Can the obligation to provide ?reasonable access? be further clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:? >>>> >>>> Best to all, >>>> >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Pam Little >>>> >>>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM >>>> >>>> To: Epdp-dt at icann.org; marika.konings at icann.org; Drazek, Keith >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >>>> >>>> Hi Keith >>>> >>>> Many thanks to you and the small drafting team for the "final" draft. >>>> >>>> Because of time zone differences, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: >>>> >>>> "J2) Can the obligation to provide ?reasonable access? be clarified or defined reconciled with the objective of avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to third-party access to registration data, , without the implementation of a community-wide model for access or similar framework which takes into account at least the following elements:" >>>> >>>> It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. >>>> >>>> I also have a question regarding the last paragraph in the final draft: >>>> >>>> "The EPDP Team shall respect the timelines and deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the work plan needed adjustment." >>>> >>>> The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable 2. Is the EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all three deliverables? >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Pam >>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt >>>>> >>>>> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 >>>>> >>>>> To:Epdp-dt at icann.org ; marika.konings at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >>>>> >>>>> Hello again everyone?. >>>>> >>>>> Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope section for your review and our vote on the 19th. >>>>> >>>>> I have attached the redline version (against the version circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of all parties. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Keith >>>>> >>>>> From: Drazek, Keith >>>>> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM >>>>> >>>>> To: Drazek, Keith >>>>> >>>>> Cc: Epdp-dt at icann.org; marika.konings at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >>>>> >>>>> Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Keith >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> As discussed on Wednesday?s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. >>>>> >>>>> I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July Council meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Keith >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>>>> >>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt](https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C21dc7986efdb472f2d1608d5eae86f9d%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636673207197019797&sdata=42E7jzrAu6xBuZTUb5%2BNLhVHYI20lrWnf%2Fgrl3WOpgg%3D&reserved=0) >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Epdp-dt mailing list >>> >>> Epdp-dt at icann.org >>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2044 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Updated Scope Section 16 July 2018 -- Consolidated Edits v3 CLEAN.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 32066 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 02:19:25 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 08:19:25 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> <7UNj3Jud03n8abGBthWobkxdLZcWUUuY9Rr2SBK1FbqlT-wrTCFHF7DmFuHr67Nfgq7EaFTSVzWGSXbW5p6Dj-LDHqH0S7pIW-55h8PtbMc=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi all, as there was no objection in the list and commented supported by several PC members, the comment is considered endorsed and it was submitted. Thanks, Best Regards, Rafik Le lun. 16 juil. 2018 ? 08:53, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > hi all, > > The document is finalized and we have 24hours before the deadline, it was > also reviewed by several PC members and their edits/comments resolved. > if I don't hear strong objections in coming hours, the document will be > considered as endorsed and submitted. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le lun. 16 juil. 2018 ? 02:06, Tatiana Tropina > a ?crit : > >> Ayden, >> thanks a lot for your work! I see that my corrections were accepted, so I >> am fine with the submission of the comment. >> Cheers, >> Tanya >> >> On 15 July 2018 at 19:01, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >>> I made all the additions on visa. And am fine with the doc >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:49 AM Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Just a reminder: the deadline for submission of comments is in 24 hours >>>> time; I hope that we can submit this comment before the deadline passes. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On 13 July 2018 3:39 PM, farzaneh badii >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'd like to add a visa paragraph if not added already. I can do it >>>> today. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:28 AM Ayden F?rdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Tatiana, >>>>> >>>>> I did accept all of your edits, however there were subsequently a >>>>> number of other edits that came in, so the document might be a little >>>>> different to what you reviewed. While in my opinion none run contrary to >>>>> the original sentiment, it might be a good idea to give it one final review! >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 13 July 2018 11:51 AM, Tatiana Tropina >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> I saw that Ayden resolved all my comments so I am supposingly fine >>>>> with the document although I would love to give it a kinda final look! Am >>>>> now at WHOIS session at Council of Europe octopus conference and I brought >>>>> no laptop to have no distractions. I will check the document again (just in >>>>> case because I believe my concerns and comments were addressed) this >>>>> evening once I get home ? hope it?s okay. >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Tanya >>>>> >>>>> On Fri 13. Jul 2018 at 11:43, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I resolved the comments/edits that came in. None were contentious. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 13 July 2018 11:38 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Farell, >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't recall resolving or editing this week that draft. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:58 PM Farell FOLLY >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Rafik, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot see >>>>>>> any comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on >>>>>>> another/wrong version?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @__f_f__ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>>>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>>>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>>>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>>>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we have a public comment draft to review asap >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>>>>> Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 >>>>>>> Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment >>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel >>>>>>> Support Guidelines: >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. >>>>>>> so please review and share your comments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 02:20:29 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 08:20:29 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment In-Reply-To: References: <47232216-A683-4B64-A3AF-D9076F0C9F45@benin2point0.org> <7UNj3Jud03n8abGBthWobkxdLZcWUUuY9Rr2SBK1FbqlT-wrTCFHF7DmFuHr67Nfgq7EaFTSVzWGSXbW5p6Dj-LDHqH0S7pIW-55h8PtbMc=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: for reference, the comment sent is attached. Rafik Le mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 08:19, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > > as there was no objection in the list and commented supported by several > PC members, the comment is considered endorsed and it was submitted. > Thanks, > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > Le lun. 16 juil. 2018 ? 08:53, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> hi all, >> >> The document is finalized and we have 24hours before the deadline, it was >> also reviewed by several PC members and their edits/comments resolved. >> if I don't hear strong objections in coming hours, the document will be >> considered as endorsed and submitted. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le lun. 16 juil. 2018 ? 02:06, Tatiana Tropina >> a ?crit : >> >>> Ayden, >>> thanks a lot for your work! I see that my corrections were accepted, so >>> I am fine with the submission of the comment. >>> Cheers, >>> Tanya >>> >>> On 15 July 2018 at 19:01, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I made all the additions on visa. And am fine with the doc >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:49 AM Ayden F?rdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Just a reminder: the deadline for submission of comments is in 24 >>>>> hours time; I hope that we can submit this comment before the deadline >>>>> passes. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On 13 July 2018 3:39 PM, farzaneh badii >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to add a visa paragraph if not added already. I can do it >>>>> today. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:28 AM Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Tatiana, >>>>>> >>>>>> I did accept all of your edits, however there were subsequently a >>>>>> number of other edits that came in, so the document might be a little >>>>>> different to what you reviewed. While in my opinion none run contrary to >>>>>> the original sentiment, it might be a good idea to give it one final review! >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On 13 July 2018 11:51 AM, Tatiana Tropina >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> All, >>>>>> I saw that Ayden resolved all my comments so I am supposingly fine >>>>>> with the document although I would love to give it a kinda final look! Am >>>>>> now at WHOIS session at Council of Europe octopus conference and I brought >>>>>> no laptop to have no distractions. I will check the document again (just in >>>>>> case because I believe my concerns and comments were addressed) this >>>>>> evening once I get home ? hope it?s okay. >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Tanya >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri 13. Jul 2018 at 11:43, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I resolved the comments/edits that came in. None were contentious. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>> On 13 July 2018 11:38 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Farell, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't recall resolving or editing this week that draft. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:58 PM Farell FOLLY >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Rafik, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have already reviewed and commented on this, however; I cannot >>>>>>>> see any comment anymore (unless you resolved them or did I comment on >>>>>>>> another/wrong version?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @__f_f__ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>>>>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>>>>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>>>>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>>>>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 04:35, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we have a public comment draft to review asap >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>>> From: *Rafik Dammak* >>>>>>>> Date: lun. 9 juil. 2018 ? 12:27 >>>>>>>> Subject: Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG comment >>>>>>>> To: ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> this a reminder about the draft comment review on Community Travel >>>>>>>> Support Guidelines: >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEWgze1lVbMlB5if0EnfZE2BxGreHoQ6SKaj6ya7sZY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>> the deadline for submission is the 16th July which means next week. >>>>>>>> so please review and share your comments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Community Travel Support Guidelines - NCSG Comment.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 169648 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 04:26:24 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 21:26:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <70D67E85-9B6A-4649-9EB3-CF2E816B5639@benin2point0.org> <633f96ae-d2f9-a89f-2526-f3863427bc3e@mail.utoronto.ca> <2f01c0da-faa7-ea52-0545-583f364a2e77@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Thanks and no problem. Will submit the names before the deadline. On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 6:19 PM Tatiana Tropina wrote: > Thanks, Kathy - great to know I am not alone experiencing this. It drove > me mad! Fixed it by sending all the copies to google email address. Now I > hope nothing gets lost.... > > On 17 July 2018 at 00:15, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > >> The same thing has happened to me, Tatiana. Many emails of late from NCSG >> have gone straight into SPAM, or been dropped altogether. >> >> On 7/16/2018 5:57 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: >> >> Thanks a lot for the reminder, Farzaneh. Apparently, though I fixed the >> issues with the PC list by asking Maryam to send all emails to my >> gmail address, many emails got lost in SPAM or in the filters and never got >> retrieved. I am going to Barcelona, I am very sorry that I didn't see that >> email and I can't even find it anywhere in my inbox with the previous email >> address I used for the PC list. Apologies. >> Warm regards, >> Tanya >> >> On 16 July 2018 at 23:51, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >>> So I guess all council members will be going even the ones did not >>> respond. >>> >>> I have to submit the names soon so if a council member not going let me >>> know by tomorrow. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM Farell FOLLY >>> wrote: >>> >>>> OK See you all there. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> @__f_f__ >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> >>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1 Jul 2018, at 19:42, Stephanie Perrin < >>>> stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote: >>>> >>>> basically this happens at every meeting Farell, the secretariat checks >>>> with SG leaders to get their list of who will be funded. This is our first >>>> chance to substitute names if we know a councillor is not coming. >>>> >>>> Stephanie >>>> On 2018-07-01 10:56, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> >>>> Just for funded councilors. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:21 AM Farell FOLLY >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I will be attending but in my own capacity and don?t need visa. What >>>>> is exactly the purpose of this inquiry? Or is it intended to funded >>>>> travellers only? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> @__f_f__ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards >>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 29 Jun 2018, at 15:31, farzaneh badii >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who is going to Barcelona? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: Terri Agnew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in Barcelona in a >>>>> timely fashion, please submit your ICANN63 Meeting database to >>>>> gnso-secs at icann.org by *Wednesday, 18 July 2018.* >>>>> >>>>> A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the >>>>> OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for >>>>> confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. >>>>> >>>>> Please note that if you are *a GNSO supported traveler with a >>>>> designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically >>>>> secured for you*, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is >>>>> un-reimbursable. >>>>> >>>>> Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of >>>>> fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the >>>>> following into consideration: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your >>>>> upcoming travel to Barcelona. >>>>> >>>>> 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please >>>>> make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN >>>>> travel team to let them know you will need a visa. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case >>>>> by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day >>>>> deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel >>>>> as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa >>>>> issues. >>>>> >>>>> 4. If possible please book direct travel >>>>> requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. >>>>> >>>>> 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the >>>>> ICANN meeting venue. >>>>> >>>>> 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting >>>>> is Friday, 19 October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. >>>>> >>>>> 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be >>>>> done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the >>>>> ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. >>>>> >>>>> 8. *Privately Booked Reservations*: ICANN will not >>>>> refund or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. >>>>> If a replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to >>>>> cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their >>>>> reservation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks for your cooperation! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> *Terri * >>>>> >>>>> * ---* >>>>> >>>>> *Terri Agnew* >>>>> >>>>> Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator >>>>> >>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>> >>>>> *Email:* terri.agnew at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> *Skype ID:* terri.agnew.icann >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and >>>>> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO >>>>> >>>>> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ >>>>> >>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 04:48:02 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 10:48:02 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I am resending this as we should talk about the selection process and agree on it. the deadline for submission is the 18th. with the current number of applications, I want to suggest an extension of 24hours. it is also important to encourage more people to apply. if there is no objection, I will send the extension to the list (for now I am sending a reminder only) Best, Rafik Le jeu. 12 juil. 2018 ? 09:02, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > > I accepted most the changes for the draft call > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit?ts=5b45fde2 > . > > We shall receive soon the letter from GNSO about the appointment to EPDP > team. I will update the draft with the latest relevant text (statement of > participation and requirements) and other relevant annexes from that call. > > Due to the time constraint, I will send the call this Thursday. there may > some text that can be tweaked but I think we shouldn't spend more time > doing that. We cannot change the deadline as the date for sending names > around the 20th. We should encourage candidates to apply but please be > careful and indicate that doesn't mean automatic selection. > > Selection: > There is a matrix for review and ranking in the document, please check it > and let's discuss how we will manage the selection: > - Review: we will do individually the ranking based on the compiled > applications (Maryam and I will work on the format for the matrix to get > everyone input and including applicants info) > - Deliberations: last time for an appointment to SSC, the deliberations > didn't happen in the PC list but with conference calls and private email > thread. I don't have any strong preference (public or private) but in term > of transparency, we can make the list of applicants public, taking notes of > the process. Please share your thought on the matter. I think we will have > at least one conference call, to be recorded and transcribed and so > available when needed. > - Decision-making: we work with rough consensus and we need to have a > strong support for each representative to be appointed. The ranking will > help us partly in splitting between members and alternates (it also depends > on people choice). > > this temporary process will be documented and updated. All those > elements will be helpful as input for general PC procedures related to the > appointment (Farzaneh and me working on updating the draft to be shared > soon). > > later on, we can work on preparing for EPDP itself, more on substance, > and how we will liaise with the members. Several suggestions are made and > indicated in the call for volunteers itself. NCSG PC has a role in term of > support and input including regular EPDP related calls, giving guidance to > representatives and getting regular updates. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Jul 17 07:06:39 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:06:39 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please give an extra day. SP On 2018-07-16 21:48, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > I am resending this as we should talk about the selection process and > agree on it. > the deadline for submission is the 18th. with the current number of > applications, I want to suggest an extension of 24hours. it is also > important to encourage more people to apply. if there is no objection, > I will send the extension to the list (for now I am sending a reminder > only) > > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le?jeu. 12 juil. 2018 ??09:02, Rafik Dammak > a ?crit?: > > Hi all, > > I accepted most the changes for the draft call > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit?ts=5b45fde2 > . > > We shall receive soon the letter from GNSO about the appointment > to EPDP team. I will update the draft with the latest relevant > text (statement of participation and requirements) and other > relevant annexes from that call. > > Due to the time constraint, I will send the call this Thursday. > there may some text that can be tweaked but I think we shouldn't > spend more time doing that. We cannot change the deadline as the > date for sending names around the 20th. We should encourage > candidates to apply but please be careful and indicate that > doesn't mean automatic selection. > > Selection: > There is a matrix for review and ranking in the document, please > check it and let's discuss how we will manage the selection: > - Review: we will do individually the ranking based on the > compiled applications (Maryam and I will work on the format for > the matrix to get everyone input and including applicants info) > - Deliberations: last time for an appointment to SSC, the > deliberations didn't happen in the PC list but with conference > calls and private email thread. I don't have any strong preference > (public or private) but in term of transparency, we can make the > list of applicants public, taking notes of the process.?Please > share your thought on the matter. I think we will have at least > one conference call, to be recorded and transcribed and so > available when needed. > - Decision-making: we work with rough consensus and we need to > have a strong support for each representative to be appointed. The > ranking will help us partly in splitting between members and > alternates (it also depends on people choice). > > this temporary process will be documented and updated.? All those > elements will be helpful as input for general PC procedures > related to the appointment (Farzaneh and me working on updating > the draft to be shared soon). > > later on, we can work on preparing for EPDP itself, more on > substance,? and how we will liaise with the members. Several > suggestions are made and indicated in the call for volunteers > itself. NCSG PC has a role in term of support and input including > regular EPDP related calls, giving guidance to representatives and > getting regular updates. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 07:08:12 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 01:08:12 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0A7F9F0E-E21F-4725-8302-30DA672206B4@gmail.com> I support the idea of an extra day. > On 17 Jul 2018, at 01:06, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Please give an extra day. > > SP > On 2018-07-16 21:48, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am resending this as we should talk about the selection process and agree on it. >> the deadline for submission is the 18th. with the current number of applications, I want to suggest an extension of 24hours. it is also important to encourage more people to apply. if there is no objection, I will send the extension to the list (for now I am sending a reminder only) >> >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le jeu. 12 juil. 2018 ? 09:02, Rafik Dammak > a ?crit : >> Hi all, >> >> I accepted most the changes for the draft call https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit?ts=5b45fde2 . >> >> We shall receive soon the letter from GNSO about the appointment to EPDP team. I will update the draft with the latest relevant text (statement of participation and requirements) and other relevant annexes from that call. >> >> Due to the time constraint, I will send the call this Thursday. there may some text that can be tweaked but I think we shouldn't spend more time doing that. We cannot change the deadline as the date for sending names around the 20th. We should encourage candidates to apply but please be careful and indicate that doesn't mean automatic selection. >> >> Selection: >> There is a matrix for review and ranking in the document, please check it and let's discuss how we will manage the selection: >> - Review: we will do individually the ranking based on the compiled applications (Maryam and I will work on the format for the matrix to get everyone input and including applicants info) >> - Deliberations: last time for an appointment to SSC, the deliberations didn't happen in the PC list but with conference calls and private email thread. I don't have any strong preference (public or private) but in term of transparency, we can make the list of applicants public, taking notes of the process. Please share your thought on the matter. I think we will have at least one conference call, to be recorded and transcribed and so available when needed. >> - Decision-making: we work with rough consensus and we need to have a strong support for each representative to be appointed. The ranking will help us partly in splitting between members and alternates (it also depends on people choice). >> >> this temporary process will be documented and updated. All those elements will be helpful as input for general PC procedures related to the appointment (Farzaneh and me working on updating the draft to be shared soon). >> >> later on, we can work on preparing for EPDP itself, more on substance, and how we will liaise with the members. Several suggestions are made and indicated in the call for volunteers itself. NCSG PC has a role in term of support and input including regular EPDP related calls, giving guidance to representatives and getting regular updates. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 07:43:51 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:43:51 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. Best, Rafik Le mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:06, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > Please give an extra day. > > SP > On 2018-07-16 21:48, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > I am resending this as we should talk about the selection process and > agree on it. > the deadline for submission is the 18th. with the current number of > applications, I want to suggest an extension of 24hours. it is also > important to encourage more people to apply. if there is no objection, I > will send the extension to the list (for now I am sending a reminder only) > > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 12 juil. 2018 ? 09:02, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> I accepted most the changes for the draft call >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit?ts=5b45fde2 >> . >> >> We shall receive soon the letter from GNSO about the appointment to EPDP >> team. I will update the draft with the latest relevant text (statement of >> participation and requirements) and other relevant annexes from that call. >> >> Due to the time constraint, I will send the call this Thursday. there may >> some text that can be tweaked but I think we shouldn't spend more time >> doing that. We cannot change the deadline as the date for sending names >> around the 20th. We should encourage candidates to apply but please be >> careful and indicate that doesn't mean automatic selection. >> >> Selection: >> There is a matrix for review and ranking in the document, please check it >> and let's discuss how we will manage the selection: >> - Review: we will do individually the ranking based on the compiled >> applications (Maryam and I will work on the format for the matrix to get >> everyone input and including applicants info) >> - Deliberations: last time for an appointment to SSC, the deliberations >> didn't happen in the PC list but with conference calls and private email >> thread. I don't have any strong preference (public or private) but in term >> of transparency, we can make the list of applicants public, taking notes of >> the process. Please share your thought on the matter. I think we will have >> at least one conference call, to be recorded and transcribed and so >> available when needed. >> - Decision-making: we work with rough consensus and we need to have a >> strong support for each representative to be appointed. The ranking will >> help us partly in splitting between members and alternates (it also depends >> on people choice). >> >> this temporary process will be documented and updated. All those >> elements will be helpful as input for general PC procedures related to the >> appointment (Farzaneh and me working on updating the draft to be shared >> soon). >> >> later on, we can work on preparing for EPDP itself, more on substance, >> and how we will liaise with the members. Several suggestions are made and >> indicated in the call for volunteers itself. NCSG PC has a role in term of >> support and input including regular EPDP related calls, giving guidance to >> representatives and getting regular updates. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 08:34:45 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 07:34:45 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <70D67E85-9B6A-4649-9EB3-CF2E816B5639@benin2point0.org> <633f96ae-d2f9-a89f-2526-f3863427bc3e@mail.utoronto.ca> <2f01c0da-faa7-ea52-0545-583f364a2e77@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Just for the record, i am going to Barcelona! We have been discussing this with Farzaneh for a while and i have started working on my visa. ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:26 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Thanks and no problem. > > Will submit the names before the deadline. > >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 6:19 PM Tatiana Tropina wrote: >> Thanks, Kathy - great to know I am not alone experiencing this. It drove me mad! Fixed it by sending all the copies to google email address. Now I hope nothing gets lost.... >> >>> On 17 July 2018 at 00:15, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>> The same thing has happened to me, Tatiana. Many emails of late from NCSG have gone straight into SPAM, or been dropped altogether. >>> >>>> On 7/16/2018 5:57 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>>> Thanks a lot for the reminder, Farzaneh. Apparently, though I fixed the issues with the PC list by asking Maryam to send all emails to my gmail address, many emails got lost in SPAM or in the filters and never got retrieved. I am going to Barcelona, I am very sorry that I didn't see that email and I can't even find it anywhere in my inbox with the previous email address I used for the PC list. Apologies. >>>> Warm regards, >>>> Tanya >>>> >>>> On 16 July 2018 at 23:51, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>> So I guess all council members will be going even the ones did not respond. >>>>> >>>>> I have to submit the names soon so if a council member not going let me know by tomorrow. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM Farell FOLLY wrote: >>>>>> OK See you all there. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> @__f_f__ >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1 Jul 2018, at 19:42, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> basically this happens at every meeting Farell, the secretariat checks with SG leaders to get their list of who will be funded. This is our first chance to substitute names if we know a councillor is not coming. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stephanie >>>>>>>> On 2018-07-01 10:56, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>>> Just for funded councilors. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:21 AM Farell FOLLY wrote: >>>>>>>>> I will be attending but in my own capacity and don?t need visa. What is exactly the purpose of this inquiry? Or is it intended to funded travellers only? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @__f_f__ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>>>>>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>>>>>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>>>>>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>>>>>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 29 Jun 2018, at 15:31, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Who is going to Barcelona? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>>>>> From: Terri Agnew >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 in Barcelona in a timely fashion, please submit your ICANN63 Meeting database to gnso-secs at icann.org by Wednesday, 18 July 2018. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A timely response would be appreciated in view of visa issues and the OFAC review. The deadline for submissions is critical to allow for confirmed reservation numbers as required for visa and travel arrangements. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please note that if you are a GNSO supported traveler with a designated hotel accommodation funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for you, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is un-reimbursable. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please note that when requesting travel support, in the interest of fairness and in light of budget restrictions we would like you to take the following into consideration: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Respond timely to ICANN Travel regarding your upcoming travel to Barcelona. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. If you require a visa to enter the country, please make sure to acquire your visa immediately. Please contact the ICANN travel team to let them know you will need a visa. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. Requests past the deadline will be handled on a case by case basis by ICANN. All additional travelers added after the 90-day deadline are subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and may not be able to attend due to visa issues. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. If possible please book direct travel requests. Detours and multi-stop trips are unfortunately not guaranteed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5. Strictly limit your travel from your home to the ICANN meeting venue. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 6. Approved date of arrival/departure for this meeting is Friday, 19 October ? Friday, 26 October 2018. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 7. If travelers want to extend their stay this must be done at their own expense and should contact the hotel directly once the ICANN hotel confirmation has be sent to them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 8. Privately Booked Reservations: ICANN will not refund or take over accommodations directly booked by the funded traveler. If a replacement has an existing hotel reservation, they will need to cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be able to take over their reservation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for your cooperation! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With kind regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Terri >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Terri Agnew >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Email: terri.agnew at icann.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 09:54:18 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 08:54:18 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A 24h extension looks good to give chance to many people to apply. ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jul 17, 2018, at 6:43 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. > > I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can > - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list > - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. > - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. > > it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. > > I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. > > Best, > > Rafik > > >> Le mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:06, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : >> Please give an extra day. >> >> SP >>> On 2018-07-16 21:48, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am resending this as we should talk about the selection process and agree on it. >>> the deadline for submission is the 18th. with the current number of applications, I want to suggest an extension of 24hours. it is also important to encourage more people to apply. if there is no objection, I will send the extension to the list (for now I am sending a reminder only) >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>>> Le jeu. 12 juil. 2018 ? 09:02, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I accepted most the changes for the draft call https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit?ts=5b45fde2 . >>>> >>>> We shall receive soon the letter from GNSO about the appointment to EPDP team. I will update the draft with the latest relevant text (statement of participation and requirements) and other relevant annexes from that call. >>>> >>>> Due to the time constraint, I will send the call this Thursday. there may some text that can be tweaked but I think we shouldn't spend more time doing that. We cannot change the deadline as the date for sending names around the 20th. We should encourage candidates to apply but please be careful and indicate that doesn't mean automatic selection. >>>> >>>> Selection: >>>> There is a matrix for review and ranking in the document, please check it and let's discuss how we will manage the selection: >>>> - Review: we will do individually the ranking based on the compiled applications (Maryam and I will work on the format for the matrix to get everyone input and including applicants info) >>>> - Deliberations: last time for an appointment to SSC, the deliberations didn't happen in the PC list but with conference calls and private email thread. I don't have any strong preference (public or private) but in term of transparency, we can make the list of applicants public, taking notes of the process. Please share your thought on the matter. I think we will have at least one conference call, to be recorded and transcribed and so available when needed. >>>> - Decision-making: we work with rough consensus and we need to have a strong support for each representative to be appointed. The ranking will help us partly in splitting between members and alternates (it also depends on people choice). >>>> >>>> this temporary process will be documented and updated. All those elements will be helpful as input for general PC procedures related to the appointment (Farzaneh and me working on updating the draft to be shared soon). >>>> >>>> later on, we can work on preparing for EPDP itself, more on substance, and how we will liaise with the members. Several suggestions are made and indicated in the call for volunteers itself. NCSG PC has a role in term of support and input including regular EPDP related calls, giving guidance to representatives and getting regular updates. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Jul 17 15:14:44 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 08:14:44 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: ICANN63 | Barcelona - Supported Travelers/Contractor Travelers Database Due // 18 July 2018 In-Reply-To: References: <39ecaaba813f4bafa663440a1503ada3@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <70D67E85-9B6A-4649-9EB3-CF2E816B5639@benin2point0.org> <633f96ae-d2f9-a89f-2526-f3863427bc3e@mail.utoronto.ca> <2f01c0da-faa7-ea52-0545-583f364a2e77@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <4836c3a5-5f90-02c1-887e-1108364dc04b@kathykleiman.com> private - I was really upset too! On 7/16/2018 6:19 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > Thanks, Kathy - great to know I am not alone experiencing this. It > drove me mad! Fixed it by sending all the copies to google email > address. Now I hope nothing gets lost.... > > On 17 July 2018 at 00:15, Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > > The same thing has happened to me, Tatiana. Many emails of late > from NCSG have gone straight into SPAM, or been dropped altogether. > > > On 7/16/2018 5:57 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: >> Thanks a lot for the reminder, Farzaneh. Apparently, though I >> fixed the issues with the PC list by asking Maryam to send all >> emails to my gmail?address, many emails got lost in SPAM or in >> the filters and never got retrieved. I am going to Barcelona, I >> am very sorry that I didn't see that email and I can't even find >> it anywhere in my inbox with the previous email address I used >> for the PC list. Apologies. >> Warm regards, >> Tanya >> >> On 16 July 2018 at 23:51, farzaneh badii >> > wrote: >> >> So I guess all council members will be going even the ones >> did not respond. >> >> I have to submit the names soon so if a council member not >> going let me know by tomorrow. >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM Farell FOLLY >> > wrote: >> >> OK See you all there. >> >> >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 1 Jul 2018, at 19:42, Stephanie Perrin >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> basically this happens at every meeting Farell, the >>> secretariat checks with SG leaders to get their list of >>> who will be funded.? This is our first chance to >>> substitute names if we know a councillor is not coming. >>> >>> Stephanie >>> >>> On 2018-07-01 10:56, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> Just for funded councilors. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:21 AM Farell FOLLY >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I will be attending but in my own capacity and >>>> don?t need visa. What is exactly the purpose of >>>> this inquiry? Or is it intended to funded >>>> travellers only? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> @__f_f__ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> >>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 29 Jun 2018, at 15:31, farzaneh badii >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who is going to Barcelona? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: Terri Agnew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In order to service your travel needs for ICANN63 >>>>> in Barcelona in a timely fashion, please submit >>>>> your ICANN63 Meeting database to >>>>> gnso-secs at icann.org by >>>>> *Wednesday, 18 July 2018.* >>>>> >>>>> A timely response would be appreciated in view of >>>>> visa issues and the OFAC review. The deadline for >>>>> submissions is critical to allow for confirmed >>>>> reservation numbers as required for visa and >>>>> travel arrangements. >>>>> >>>>> Please note that if you are *a GNSO supported >>>>> traveler with a designated hotel accommodation >>>>> funding, a hotel room is automatically secured for >>>>> you*, please DO NOT book your own hotel as it is >>>>> un-reimbursable. >>>>> >>>>> Please note that when requesting travel support, >>>>> in the interest of fairness and in light of budget >>>>> restrictions?we would like you to take the >>>>> following into consideration: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1.Respond?timely to ICANN Travel regarding your >>>>> upcoming travel toBarcelona. >>>>> >>>>> 2.If you require a visa to enter the country, >>>>> please make sure to acquire your visa >>>>> immediately.?Please contact the ICANN travel team >>>>> to let them know you will need a visa. >>>>> >>>>> 3.Requests past the deadline will be handled on a >>>>> case by case basis by ICANN. All additional >>>>> travelers added after the 90-day deadline are >>>>> subject to availability, may NOT be placed in the >>>>> same hotel as their funded traveler groups, and >>>>> may not be able to attend due to visa issues. >>>>> >>>>> 4.If possible please book?direct travel >>>>> requests.?Detours and multi-stop trips are >>>>> unfortunately not guaranteed. >>>>> >>>>> 5.Strictly limit your travel from your home to the >>>>> ICANN meeting venue. >>>>> >>>>> 6.Approved date of arrival/departure for this >>>>> meeting is Friday, 19 October ? Friday, 26 October >>>>> 2018. >>>>> >>>>> 7.If travelers want to extend their stay this must >>>>> be done at their own expense and should contact >>>>> the hotel directly once the ICANN hotel >>>>> confirmation has be sent to them. >>>>> >>>>> 8./Privately Booked Reservations/:?ICANN will not >>>>> refund or take over accommodations directly booked >>>>> by the funded traveler. If a replacement has an >>>>> existing hotel reservation, they will need to >>>>> cancel their reservation and ICANN will not be >>>>> able to take over their reservation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?Many thanks for your cooperation! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> *Terri * >>>>> >>>>> *????????????---* >>>>> >>>>> *Terri Agnew* >>>>> >>>>> Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator >>>>> >>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and >>>>> Numbers (ICANN) >>>>> >>>>> *Email:*terri.agnew at icann.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Skype ID:*terri.agnew.icann >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our >>>>> interactive courses?and visiting the GNSO Newcomer >>>>> pages >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: >>>>> https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 16:57:57 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 22:57:57 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, based on what suggested in the NCSG call, I am thinking we can make a list of tasks that support volunteers can cover (and set up space for those tasks). I will also keep a list of those volunteers and make a call later in next days to see who want to join and how they can help based on the tasks we are proposing or they may propose. in meantime, I will announce the 24 hours extension as I didn't see any objection. Best, Rafik Le mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi, > > Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from > others. > > I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC > monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular > updates from representatives, we can > - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the > topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list > - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who > want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. > - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) > so we can refer to them easily. > > it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup > this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also > mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep > things bearable for everyone. > > I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate > the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. > that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers > too. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:06, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > >> Please give an extra day. >> >> SP >> On 2018-07-16 21:48, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am resending this as we should talk about the selection process and >> agree on it. >> the deadline for submission is the 18th. with the current number of >> applications, I want to suggest an extension of 24hours. it is also >> important to encourage more people to apply. if there is no objection, I >> will send the extension to the list (for now I am sending a reminder only) >> >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le jeu. 12 juil. 2018 ? 09:02, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I accepted most the changes for the draft call >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit?ts=5b45fde2 >>> . >>> >>> We shall receive soon the letter from GNSO about the appointment to EPDP >>> team. I will update the draft with the latest relevant text (statement of >>> participation and requirements) and other relevant annexes from that call. >>> >>> Due to the time constraint, I will send the call this Thursday. there >>> may some text that can be tweaked but I think we shouldn't spend more time >>> doing that. We cannot change the deadline as the date for sending names >>> around the 20th. We should encourage candidates to apply but please be >>> careful and indicate that doesn't mean automatic selection. >>> >>> Selection: >>> There is a matrix for review and ranking in the document, please check >>> it and let's discuss how we will manage the selection: >>> - Review: we will do individually the ranking based on the compiled >>> applications (Maryam and I will work on the format for the matrix to get >>> everyone input and including applicants info) >>> - Deliberations: last time for an appointment to SSC, the deliberations >>> didn't happen in the PC list but with conference calls and private email >>> thread. I don't have any strong preference (public or private) but in term >>> of transparency, we can make the list of applicants public, taking notes of >>> the process. Please share your thought on the matter. I think we will have >>> at least one conference call, to be recorded and transcribed and so >>> available when needed. >>> - Decision-making: we work with rough consensus and we need to have a >>> strong support for each representative to be appointed. The ranking will >>> help us partly in splitting between members and alternates (it also depends >>> on people choice). >>> >>> this temporary process will be documented and updated. All those >>> elements will be helpful as input for general PC procedures related to the >>> appointment (Farzaneh and me working on updating the draft to be shared >>> soon). >>> >>> later on, we can work on preparing for EPDP itself, more on substance, >>> and how we will liaise with the members. Several suggestions are made and >>> indicated in the call for volunteers itself. NCSG PC has a role in term of >>> support and input including regular EPDP related calls, giving guidance to >>> representatives and getting regular updates. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Tue Jul 17 21:29:13 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 20:29:13 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It sounds good. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 17 Jul 2018, at 15:57, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > based on what suggested in the NCSG call, I am thinking we can make a list of tasks that support volunteers can cover (and set up space for those tasks). I will also keep a list of those volunteers and make a call later in next days to see who want to join and how they can help based on the tasks we are proposing or they may propose. > in meantime, I will announce the 24 hours extension as I didn't see any objection. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43, Rafik Dammak > a ?crit : > Hi, > > Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. > > I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can > - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list > - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. > - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. > > it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. > > I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:06, Stephanie Perrin > a ?crit : > Please give an extra day. > > SP > On 2018-07-16 21:48, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am resending this as we should talk about the selection process and agree on it. >> the deadline for submission is the 18th. with the current number of applications, I want to suggest an extension of 24hours. it is also important to encourage more people to apply. if there is no objection, I will send the extension to the list (for now I am sending a reminder only) >> >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le jeu. 12 juil. 2018 ? 09:02, Rafik Dammak > a ?crit : >> Hi all, >> >> I accepted most the changes for the draft call https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoV5UeR03Q9tFuhxDsWjbfftb4O8q2WZnRg-TRCD8nc/edit?ts=5b45fde2 . >> >> We shall receive soon the letter from GNSO about the appointment to EPDP team. I will update the draft with the latest relevant text (statement of participation and requirements) and other relevant annexes from that call. >> >> Due to the time constraint, I will send the call this Thursday. there may some text that can be tweaked but I think we shouldn't spend more time doing that. We cannot change the deadline as the date for sending names around the 20th. We should encourage candidates to apply but please be careful and indicate that doesn't mean automatic selection. >> >> Selection: >> There is a matrix for review and ranking in the document, please check it and let's discuss how we will manage the selection: >> - Review: we will do individually the ranking based on the compiled applications (Maryam and I will work on the format for the matrix to get everyone input and including applicants info) >> - Deliberations: last time for an appointment to SSC, the deliberations didn't happen in the PC list but with conference calls and private email thread. I don't have any strong preference (public or private) but in term of transparency, we can make the list of applicants public, taking notes of the process. Please share your thought on the matter. I think we will have at least one conference call, to be recorded and transcribed and so available when needed. >> - Decision-making: we work with rough consensus and we need to have a strong support for each representative to be appointed. The ranking will help us partly in splitting between members and alternates (it also depends on people choice). >> >> this temporary process will be documented and updated. All those elements will be helpful as input for general PC procedures related to the appointment (Farzaneh and me working on updating the draft to be shared soon). >> >> later on, we can work on preparing for EPDP itself, more on substance, and how we will liaise with the members. Several suggestions are made and indicated in the call for volunteers itself. NCSG PC has a role in term of support and input including regular EPDP related calls, giving guidance to representatives and getting regular updates. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Jul 17 22:16:31 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 15:16:31 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope In-Reply-To: <26fcaebd-13c5-3c5d-972a-2693b6b4e157@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <26fcaebd-13c5-3c5d-972a-2693b6b4e157@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: We are getting railroaded towards the finish line here.? Here is my latest. SP -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 15:04:19 -0400 From: Stephanie Perrin To: epdp-dt at icann.org Ok, I will surrender to the will of the group (as usual).? Just out of interest though, who of you who said lets all trust in good faith are planning to work on the EPDP?? there is nothing like eating your own cooking to improve the drive for perfection..... The purpose of a well scoped Charter and set of deliverables is to make the task of the working group clear and simple.? I humbly submit, for the record, that we have left a number of vague terms and timing criteria in there, and it may cause problems later.? A stitch in time saves nine, as the old proverb says. Cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2018-07-17 08:11, Erika Mann wrote: > This group is tasked with (a) difficult goal(s). I share Pam's concern > concerning a 'harmonized access' model but this shouldn't prevent this > group from starting the work. > > As long as we keep in mind that we're searching for a WHOIS (access) > model that is workable - and legally acceptable - in different > jurisdictions, and as long we don't become orthodox in our approaches, > we should be able to see a solid outcome emerging. > > Heather, framed it well in her last email: > > "We need to resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP > Team. If language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not > perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council with > questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see if > these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work." > > Kind regards, > Erika > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 16, 2018, at 9:11 PM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt > > wrote: > >> Very well said Heather. >> >> *From:*Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of >> *Heather Forrest >> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 5:43 PM >> *To:* Epdp-dt at icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> Colleagues, >> >> We have travelled a long distance together, and the small group has >> worked almost non-stop on the scope for nearly 2 weeks now, up >> against work and family pressures and the tantalising photos of >> others' summer family holidays. The weight of the task is pushing us >> to our limits, and it kills me to see the significant efforts at >> compromise from Panama and the two weeks since come undone in the >> final 3 days. >> >> We've said many times - but I'll repeat it here as now it's urgent >> and very real - that the community's perception of the Council's >> ability to deliver on its Bylaws mandate by running this EPDP is at >> stake on Thursday. If we are unable to agree on the charter, there is >> a live risk that Pandora's box opens. >> >> We had a text that was fairly stable as of Sunday, based on the >> timeline that we agreed in the DT call last Wednesday. We need to >> resist the temptation of usurping the work of the EPDP Team. If >> language is redundant, they will work around it. If it is not >> perfect, we will empower them to refine, and come back to Council >> with questions where necessary. Let's get this team started, and see >> if these last minute issues are truly obstacles to their work. If we >> do not get them started, we may never find out. If you are willing to >> work with the text we have as per Keith's Sunday email and let the >> Team push forward, now is the time to speak up. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Heather >> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Pam Little >> > wrote: >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> Thank you for the feedback. >> >> To me, the goal of the Temp Spec and this EPDP effort is very >> simple: to comply with the law. "Avoid the fragmentation of >> WHOIS" or the idea of harmonization as a premise or goal is >> fundamentally flawed. As you know, there is already fragmentation >> of WHOIS in the cc world. As far as I know, .JP does not even >> have a WHOIS service. >> >> More importantly, I would like to point out?the latest >> guidanceregarding Codes of Conduct and Accreditation in the EDPB >> letter (see page 6 >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to >> -marby-05jul18-en.pdf). >> Specifically: >> >> 1. Certification and/or accreditation are voluntary measures, not >> mandatory. >> >> 2. ?The responsibility for designing a model that will provide >> the assurance [of compliance with the GDPR] is, in the first >> instance, up to the data controllers. >> >> The previous langauge and your latest suggested language >> pre-suppose there should be a "community-wide model for access or >> similar framework", which in my view, is inconsistent with the >> above guidance. >> >> I hope this explains my thinking for my proposed edits. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Pam >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Sender:Drazek, Keith > > >> >> Sent at:2018 Jul 17 (Tue) 01:58 >> >> To:PMcGrady at winston.com >> >; PAMELA >> LITTLE > >; Epdp-dt at icann.org >> > >; marika.konings at icann.org >> > > >> >> Subject:RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> Hi Pam and Paul, >> >> Attached is an updated version incorporating Pam?s edits and >> responding to her questions. I incorporated Paul?s suggested >> language below for Section J. >> >> Regards, >> >> Keith >> >> *From:* McGrady, Paul D. > > >> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 7:37 AM >> *To:* Pam Little > >; Epdp-dt at icann.org >> ; marika.konings at icann.org >> ; Drazek, Keith >> > >> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> Hi Pam, >> >> Thank you for your proposed edits.? However, I do think that >> they eliminate an important concept that we were trying to >> get at and would prefer the question revert to its previous >> formulation. >> >> If the DT decides to eliminate the concept of >> reconciliation/avoiding an unharmonized approach, I still >> think your proposed changes need some work. >> >> If we change to ?Can the obligation to provide ?reasonable >> access? be clarified or defined?? I think that leads us down >> the wrong path.? J1 already focuses on clarifying and >> defining reasonable access.? I think we could ask ?Can the >> obligation to provide ?reasonable access? be further >> clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of >> a community-wide model??? We lose the idea of harmonization, >> which was the purpose of the question in the first place, but >> ultimately those working on the answer will hopefully take >> into account issues that would tend to bring a discordant >> result and try to avoid those outcomes. >> >> So, Keith, we would prefer that the question revert.? If we >> can?t get that, we would be OK with: >> >> ?Can the obligation to provide ?reasonable access? be further >> clarified and/or better defined through the implementation of >> a community-wide model for access or similar framework which >> takes into account at least the following elements:? >> >> Best to all, >> >> Paul >> >> *From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf >> Of *Pam Little >> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 1:50 AM >> *To:* Epdp-dt at icann.org ; >> marika.konings at icann.org ; >> Drazek, Keith > > >> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> Hi Keith >> >> Many thanks to you?and the small drafting team for the >> "final" draft. >> >> Because of time zone differences, I have not had an >> opportunity to discuss this with my RrSG councillors or RrSG >> members but, in the interest fo time, I have made some >> suggested edits and queries to the final draft. Most of them >> are intended to correct minor errors or add more clarity and >> consistency so I hope they are not controversial, except >> perhaps my proposed change to J2 below: >> >> "J2) Can the obligation to provide ?reasonable access? be >> clarified or definedreconciled with the objective of >> avoiding, to the extent possible, an unharmonized approach to >> third-party access to registration data, , without the >> implementation of a community-wide model for access or >> similar framework which takes into account at least the >> following elements:" >> >> It seems to me neither the langauge in the previous draft (re >> fragmentation of WHOIS) nor the final draft was helpful hence >> my proposed change to try to make it more neutral. >> >> I also have a question regarding the?last paragraph in the >> final draft: >> >> /"The EPDP Team shall respect the //timelines//and >> deliverables as outlined in Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN >> Bylaws and the EPDP Manual. As per the GNSO EPDP Working >> Group Guidelines, the EPDP Team shall develop a work plan >> that outlines the necessary steps and expected timing in >> order to achieve the milestones of the EPDP as set out in >> Annex A and A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws and the EPDP Manual and >> submit this to the GNSO Council. Any significant updates to >> the work plan are expected to be communicated in a timely >> manner to the GNSO Council with an explanation as to why the >> work plan needed adjustment." / >> >> The final draft Charter has set timelines for Deliverable >> 2.?Is the?EPDP Team expected to develop a work plan for all >> three deliverables? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Pam >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Sender:Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt > > >> >> Sent at:2018 Jul 16 (Mon) 13:08 >> >> To:Epdp-dt at icann.org >> >; >> marika.konings at icann.org >> > >> >> Subject:[Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> Hello again everyone?. >> >> Now attached is the final draft of the EPDP WG Charter scope >> section for your review and our vote on the 19^th . >> >> I have attached the redline version (against the version >> circulate to the DT last Wednesday) and the clean version. >> >> Thanks for your patience and for the constructive input of >> all parties. >> >> Regards, >> >> Keith >> >> *From:* Drazek, Keith >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:28 AM >> *To:* Drazek, Keith > > >> *Cc:* Epdp-dt at icann.org ; >> marika.konings at icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [Epdp-dt] EPDP Scope >> >> Hi all. Please wait before reviewing. I may have jumped the >> gun and we may have more suggested edits incoming from NCSG. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Keith >> >> >> On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt >> > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> As discussed on Wednesday?s EPDP Drafting Team call, attached >> is the final draft of the EPDP charter scope section. >> >> I received a few suggested edits from Stephanie and Darcy and >> did my best to incorporate/address them. The small group has >> reviewed and agreed this is ready for approval at the 19 July >> Council meeting. >> >> Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this effort. >> >> Regards, >> >> Keith >> >> >> >> > CLEAN.docx> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> The contents of this message may be privileged and >> confidential. If this message has been received in error, >> please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this >> message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. >> Please do not disseminate this message without the permission >> of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not >> intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other >> taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and >> regulations. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Epdp-dt mailing list >> Epdp-dt at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt > > _______________________________________________ > Epdp-dt mailing list > Epdp-dt at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 19 16:37:11 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 09:37:11 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Recusal from EPDP Selection Process Message-ID: Dear all, Today I expressed my interest in representing the NCSG on the EPDP. As a result, it would be inappropriate for me to serve on the Selection Committee. I just thought I'd send this quick email to formally recuse myself from it. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 16:40:41 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:40:41 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Tatiana Tropina: Recusal from EPDP Selection Process Message-ID: Dear all, I think this is time to recuse myself from the selection committee for ePDP as well as I applied today to be an alternate for ePDP. Cheers, Tanya On 19 July 2018 at 15:37, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > Today I expressed my interest in representing the NCSG on the EPDP. > > As a result, it would be inappropriate for me to serve on the Selection > Committee. > > I just thought I'd send this quick email to formally recuse myself from > it. Thanks! > > Best wishes, > Ayden > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Jul 20 00:44:34 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 17:44:34 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Tatiana Tropina: Recusal from EPDP Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I too will have to recuse myself. Stephanie Perrin On 2018-07-19 09:40, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > Dear all, > I think this is time to recuse myself from the selection committee for > ePDP as well as I applied today to be an alternate for ePDP. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On 19 July 2018 at 15:37, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > > Dear all, > > Today I expressed my interest in representing the NCSG on the EPDP. > > As a result, it would be inappropriate for me to serve on the > Selection Committee. > > I just thought I'd send this quick email to formally recuse myself > from it. Thanks! > > Best wishes, > Ayden > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 01:05:04 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 18:05:04 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Tatiana Tropina: Recusal from EPDP Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I applied. I recuse myself . On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:44 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > I too will have to recuse myself. > > Stephanie Perrin > On 2018-07-19 09:40, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Dear all, > I think this is time to recuse myself from the selection committee for > ePDP as well as I applied today to be an alternate for ePDP. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On 19 July 2018 at 15:37, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Today I expressed my interest in representing the NCSG on the EPDP. >> >> As a result, it would be inappropriate for me to serve on the Selection >> Committee. >> >> I just thought I'd send this quick email to formally recuse myself from >> it. Thanks! >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 02:20:41 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 08:20:41 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Public Comments]: Draft Comment on Open Data Initiative Datasets and Metadata In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi all, here a draft comment for review. it is under consultation with NCSG members. the deadline for submission is the 27th July Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Elsa S Date: ven. 20 juil. 2018 ? 02:58 Subject: [Public Comments]: Draft Comment on Open Data Initiative Datasets and Metadata To: NCSG Cc: Yazid Akanho , Antonella Perini < antomperini at gmail.com>, Shahul Hameed , Akinremi Peter Taiwo , Rafik Dammak Hi all, It is our pleasure to share with you the draft public comment on the Open Data Initiative (ODI) which Yazid, Antonella, Shahul, Akinremi and myself worked on over the past week, with the help of Rafik! Comments on the ODI Datasets and Metadata opened in June this year, where ICANN asked the community for advice as to which datasets in their shared inventory should be published first. The publishing chronology would be based on the comments ICANN receives, and the aim of sharing the data according to what the CEO's Blog post mentioned, would be to increase evidence-based policy development. The dataset inventory includes 232 elements on all sorts of topics, SGs and Cs. We went through them as carefully as we could on this spreadsheet which you could also take a look at, and our conclusions were drafted in this google doc . At this point, we need your input keeping in mind NCSG's priorities. We thank everyone who contributed, and any member who will contribute to make this comment more fit to submit. Note that the closing date is in a week's time, so the sooner the contributions, the better for us all! :) *Our suggestion for most efficiency would be for you to read the google doc first, check the spreadsheet, then add any comments or suggestions to the comment accordingly.* Please do let us know if there is anything that needs further elaboration, and happy reading! Best, ?Elsa? -- -- Elsa Saade Consultant Gulf Centre for Human Rights Twitter: @Elsa_Saade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Fri Jul 20 09:58:52 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 14:58:52 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Tatiana Tropina: Recusal from EPDP Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I also applied as an alternate, and will have to recuse myself. Sent from my iPad > On 20 Jul 2018, at 6:05 am, farzaneh badii wrote: > > I applied. I recuse myself . > >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:44 PM Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> I too will have to recuse myself. >> >> Stephanie Perrin >>> On 2018-07-19 09:40, Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> I think this is time to recuse myself from the selection committee for ePDP as well as I applied today to be an alternate for ePDP. >>> Cheers, >>> Tanya >>> >>>> On 19 July 2018 at 15:37, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Today I expressed my interest in representing the NCSG on the EPDP. >>>> >>>> As a result, it would be inappropriate for me to serve on the Selection Committee. >>>> >>>> I just thought I'd send this quick email to formally recuse myself from it. Thanks! >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Jul 20 17:41:38 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 10:41:38 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP: reporting in from the call with Kurt Message-ID: <453a5e86-4844-65dd-879a-e5e9dda8f3b1@mail.utoronto.ca> Hi folks, I am just updating you on the call with Kurt and Keith this morning, others did not join.? Basically Kurt was trying to figure out how to manage the work and where to start, the interim spec, the gating questions, or go through the Charter.? We urged started with the Interim spec, with the Charter parked on the side (or we will never be done).? He seems to understand rather clearly what we have been objecting to, and said we were "eloquent" in our abstentions.? I pointed out that basically we continue to follow in our WHOIS fights at ICANN, what the SSAC described as 3 blind men and the elephant in SSAC 55.....we point to what data we should be collecting using and disclosing in compliance with law and HR, the BC/IPC/GAC points to what they have always had and need for their use cases, and the contracted parties point to what they need to make a name resolve/avoid liability under the GDPR. This has marching off in different directions from the getgo, and we need to resolve what is wrong the temp spec.? So if we are lucky we can do this. Much discussion of how ICANN throws in political stuff to keep parties happy, that does nothing to resolve issues, lack of leadership on this problem from ICANN (let a thousand flowers bloom etc.) I think he will be good.? Accepts the concept of Peter Kimpian being brought in as an expert, I am going to suggest he send his application direct to Kurt. Cannot hurt.? Looking for a mediator, does anyone know a really good international class mediator? cheers STeph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Jul 20 19:26:43 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:26:43 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Updated Scope for Review In-Reply-To: References: <8d649330-fb64-5e5a-99f1-1417a0a9f401@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: This is an old mail that my machine says did not send.....DId you guys get it? Sorry, it was last weekend. Blame my crappy bandwidth.... ................................. Yes the draft has been sent to Council DT. Members of the small group are Keith, Paul, Susan, me. He has taken most of my edits in the attached doc, but will not delete the J section. Pam Little agrees with my objections, particularly the third deliverable, but thinks the registrars can live with the revised latest text. I talked to Keith this afternoon, and told him that our stakeholder group feels strongly that the simultaneous action on the access model is almost inevitable under current wording. However, Unless we want to try to rally a vote against it,we are a bit stuck. Keith wants to tick this box and get on with it. I suggest we discuss at the PC meeting and figure out a strategy. cheers SP On 2018-07-15 10:37 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Stephanie > > Do you mean that the SP edits were not incorporated in Keith's doc (I > don't have Keith's doc on 15 July, only 14)? and why on earth are all > the IPC questions incorporated but Darcy's clarification was not? > > Stephanie, you probably need to comment on this doc on behalf of NCSG > and not just SP edits. > > And this small group has two members from IPC/BC and you and Keith? > > Does this final draft go to the council for discussion? > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 9:31 AM Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > I am forwarding this new version received from Keith yesterday. > Please do not edit the documents he sent. I also attach my edits > on his document...hard to keep track of this document, I found a > bunch of new things to object to, and cannot tell anymore whether > I already commented and was ignored, or what. It is called July 15 > version, v2spedits. Please get back to me asap with further > comments, Keith is working on it today.... > > > Cheers Steph > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Updated Scope for Review > Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 15:34:26 +0000 > From: Drazek, Keith > > To: PMcGrady at winston.com > , > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > > > , susankpolicy at gmail.com > > > CC: Donna.Austin at team.neustar > , > marika.konings at icann.org > , > caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > , > haforrestesq at gmail.com > , > rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > > > Hi Paul, Stephanie and Susan, > > Attached is the updated scope document for your review. I have > attached a redline version, a clean version, and the two sets of > comments received from Stephanie and Darcy, both of which I?ve > attempted to incorporate. > > > The one comment from Darcy that I did not incorporate was a > request to be more explicit about the timing of initiating > discussions on an Access Model ? to be at the time of publication > of the Initial Report, rather than a less explicit trigger of > answering the gating questions. You can see her comments in the > attached. > > Otherwise, I think the edits are good and do not substantially or > materially impact the previous draft. Please note any concerns, > issues or suggested edits ASAP so we can send the final stable > draft to the DT by Sunday night. > > I?m hoping this is our last pass at this! > > Thanks in advance, > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Jul 21 01:24:04 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 18:24:04 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fellowship Comment Message-ID: Hi all, I have been a part of the drafting team working on a response to the proposed changes to the Fellowship Program. This has been a very contentious comment, and while we do not yet have an agreement on the final text, we are now one week from the submission deadline so I feel like we need to open this up to more voices. So, with the understanding that the language has not yet been agreed by the drafting team, here's where are at at the moment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing The proposed changes to the program are [in this PDF file](https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-proposal-new-fellowship-11jun18-en.pdf) (only 5 pages); this is all we are being asked to comment on. We are open to constructive edits in the Google Doc that address the issues that this public comment proceeding is about. Many thanks, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 02:07:14 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 08:07:14 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fellowship Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, Thanks for the note. I reached the drafting team 3 days ago urging to share the draft in NCSG list as the deadline is getting closer. I will ping them again. I think we can shape and finalize it on time aligned with what we submitted before since the changes are moving toward the right direction (there is always room for improvement) and community will be more involved. Best, Rafik Le sam. 21 juil. 2018 ? 07:24, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Hi all, > > I have been a part of the drafting team working on a response to the > proposed changes to the Fellowship Program. This has been a very > contentious comment, and while we do not yet have an agreement on the final > text, we are now one week from the submission deadline so I feel like we > need to open this up to more voices. So, with the understanding that the > language has not yet been agreed by the drafting team, here's where are at > at the moment: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing > > The proposed changes to the program are in this PDF file > > (only 5 pages); this is all we are being asked to comment on. We are open > to constructive edits in the Google Doc that address the issues that this > public comment proceeding is about. > > Many thanks, > > Ayden > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 04:01:24 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 22:01:24 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fellowship Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I?ve just made a comment on the document. No idea if is the right comment or not, I again stress the importance of understanding the fellowship is NOT only about getting more hands to work directly in DNS PDPs. Cheers, Mart?n > On 20 Jul 2018, at 20:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks for the note. > I reached the drafting team 3 days ago urging to share the draft in NCSG list as the deadline is getting closer. > I will ping them again. I think we can shape and finalize it on time aligned with what we submitted before since the changes are moving toward the right direction (there is always room for improvement) and community will be more involved. > > Best, > > Rafik > Le sam. 21 juil. 2018 ? 07:24, Ayden F?rdeline > a ?crit : > Hi all, > > I have been a part of the drafting team working on a response to the proposed changes to the Fellowship Program. This has been a very contentious comment, and while we do not yet have an agreement on the final text, we are now one week from the submission deadline so I feel like we need to open this up to more voices. So, with the understanding that the language has not yet been agreed by the drafting team, here's where are at at the moment: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing > > The proposed changes to the program are in this PDF file (only 5 pages); this is all we are being asked to comment on. We are open to constructive edits in the Google Doc that address the issues that this public comment proceeding is about. > > Many thanks, > > Ayden > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sun Jul 22 02:34:02 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 19:34:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F6041FEB7@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F6041FEB7@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> Message-ID: as can be seen by the 62 page attachment, the BC and IPC have been busy working on their accreditation model.? We have to focus on this fast, it will be brought in as a fait accompli to the EPDP as soon as they can.? I will do a markup as soon as I get the markup of the interim spec done....but we need to know who is on the EPDP as soon as possible, and start a new EPDP and observer list. cheers STeph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 21:12:11 +0000 From: Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) To: 'accred-model at icann.org' Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model. Note that Section II has been formatted in a way to mirror the questions posed by ICANN Org in its recent unified access model discussion paper.? This version 1.7 is meant to advance the very discussion on the critical need for accreditation and access. Other notable updates to this version 1.7: * The introduction section has been updated. * Annex A is now titled ?Rationale? and edited accordingly. * Annex C is now populated with input from cybersecurity experts. * Annex F (verification and compliance for private parties) is now populated. * Annex G is a discussion on accreditation oversight and types. Again, thank you to those who made helpful contributions to advancing this model.? We look forward to a robust discussion and further input. *Fabricio Vayra****| **Perkins Coie LLP* *PARTNER* D. +1.202.654.6255 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DRAFT - WHOIS Accreditation and Access Model v1.7.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1601197 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Accred-Model mailing list Accred-Model at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accred-model From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 03:03:54 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 20:03:54 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F6041FEB7@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> Message-ID: Stephanie Our stance on this is that we don't accept any accreditation /a ccess model that has not been developed by the community. Our very first question should b e whet her we need an accreditation model. We ? ? provide our own access model when the opportunity arises. But by no means IPC/BC model can be accepted as a done deal or the only model that can be focused on. I think other councilors should be on the same page and if this gets discussed at the council support and bring up this view point. Thanks On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:34 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > as can be seen by the 62 page attachment, the BC and IPC have been busy > working on their accreditation model. We have to focus on this fast, it > will be brought in as a fait accompli to the EPDP as soon as they can. I > will do a markup as soon as I get the markup of the interim spec > done....but we need to know who is on the EPDP as soon as possible, and > start a new EPDP and observer list. > > cheers STeph > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model > Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 21:12:11 +0000 > From: Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) > > To: 'accred-model at icann.org' > > > Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.7 of the > Accreditation and Access Model. > > > > Note that Section II has been formatted in a way to mirror the questions > posed by ICANN Org in its recent unified access model discussion paper. > This version 1.7 is meant to advance the very discussion on the critical > need for accreditation and access. > > > > Other notable updates to this version 1.7: > > - The introduction section has been updated. > - Annex A is now titled ?Rationale? and edited accordingly. > - Annex C is now populated with input from cybersecurity experts. > - Annex F (verification and compliance for private parties) is now > populated. > - Annex G is a discussion on accreditation oversight and types. > > > > Again, thank you to those who made helpful contributions to advancing this > model. We look forward to a robust discussion and further input. > > > > *Fabricio Vayra**| **Perkins Coie LLP* > > *PARTNER* > > D. +1.202.654.6255 > > > > ------------------------------ > > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential > information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by > reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without > copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 04:01:24 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 21:01:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meetings of NCSG - ICANN 63 Message-ID: Here is a list of NCSG meetings for Barcelona: 1. NCSG Open Session 2. NCSG PC meeting 3. NCSG EC meeting 4. NCSG meeting with CPH 5. NCSG meeting with ALAC 6. NCSG meeting with SSAC 7. NCSG meeting with GAC 8. NCSG FC meeting 9. NCSG CCWP on Human Rights We will meet with GAC in their room. Other than that some of the meetings might be held during NCSG Open Session. Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 05:29:22 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 11:29:22 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meetings of NCSG - ICANN 63 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thanks Farzaneh, Rafik Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 10:02, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Here is a list of NCSG meetings for Barcelona: > > 1. NCSG Open Session > 2. NCSG PC meeting > 3. NCSG EC meeting > 4. NCSG meeting with CPH > 5. NCSG meeting with ALAC > 6. NCSG meeting with SSAC > 7. NCSG meeting with GAC > 8. NCSG FC meeting > 9. NCSG CCWP on Human Rights > > We will meet with GAC in their room. Other than that some of the meetings > might be held during NCSG Open Session. > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 05:51:48 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 23:51:48 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meetings of NCSG - ICANN 63 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good work!!! Mart?n On Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 22:02 farzaneh badii wrote: > Here is a list of NCSG meetings for Barcelona: > > 1. NCSG Open Session > 2. NCSG PC meeting > 3. NCSG EC meeting > 4. NCSG meeting with CPH > 5. NCSG meeting with ALAC > 6. NCSG meeting with SSAC > 7. NCSG meeting with GAC > 8. NCSG FC meeting > 9. NCSG CCWP on Human Rights > > We will meet with GAC in their room. Other than that some of the meetings > might be held during NCSG Open Session. > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 06:12:29 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 12:12:29 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F6041FEB7@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> Message-ID: Hi, yes, they can try but there will be pushback. I think there is also the ICANN org UAM in the mix (for which we need to decide if we will respond or not). I won't speculate now but let's see how things will move in EPDP team and in particular for the gating questions first. Best, Rafik Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 09:04, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Stephanie > > Our stance on this is that we don't accept any accreditation > /a > ccess > model that has not been developed by the community. > Our > very first question should b > e > whet > her we need an accreditation model. We > ? ? > provide our own access model when the opportunity arises. But by no means > IPC/BC model can be accepted as a done deal or the only model that can be > focused on. > > I think other councilors should be on the same page and if this gets > discussed at the council support and bring up this view point. > > Thanks > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:34 PM Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> as can be seen by the 62 page attachment, the BC and IPC have been busy >> working on their accreditation model. We have to focus on this fast, it >> will be brought in as a fait accompli to the EPDP as soon as they can. I >> will do a markup as soon as I get the markup of the interim spec >> done....but we need to know who is on the EPDP as soon as possible, and >> start a new EPDP and observer list. >> >> cheers STeph >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model >> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 21:12:11 +0000 >> From: Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) >> >> To: 'accred-model at icann.org' >> >> >> Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.7 of the >> Accreditation and Access Model. >> >> >> >> Note that Section II has been formatted in a way to mirror the questions >> posed by ICANN Org in its recent unified access model discussion paper. >> This version 1.7 is meant to advance the very discussion on the critical >> need for accreditation and access. >> >> >> >> Other notable updates to this version 1.7: >> >> - The introduction section has been updated. >> - Annex A is now titled ?Rationale? and edited accordingly. >> - Annex C is now populated with input from cybersecurity experts. >> - Annex F (verification and compliance for private parties) is now >> populated. >> - Annex G is a discussion on accreditation oversight and types. >> >> >> >> Again, thank you to those who made helpful contributions to advancing >> this model. We look forward to a robust discussion and further input. >> >> >> >> *Fabricio Vayra**| **Perkins Coie LLP* >> >> *PARTNER* >> >> D. +1.202.654.6255 >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential >> information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by >> reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without >> copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 11:22:31 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 04:22:31 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on Long Term options to adjust for Reviews timeline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I made some more changes to this and made it a little more complete and tried to make it coherent. I think it is better now. Please comment. Already shared on the mailing list. Farzaneh On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:23 AM farzaneh badii wrote: > Here is another comment on long term options to adjust reviews timeline > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit > > We need to share with the mailing list soon. Deadline is 31 July. > > Best > > > Farzaneh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 22 13:12:41 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:12:41 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meetings of NCSG - ICANN 63 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sounds like it is going to be a busy meeting! Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 22 July 2018 4:51 AM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > Good work!!! > > Mart?n > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 22:02 farzaneh badii wrote: > >> Here is a list of NCSG meetings for Barcelona: >> >> 1. NCSG Open Session >> 2. NCSG PC meeting >> 3. NCSG EC meeting >> 4. NCSG meeting with CPH >> 5. NCSG meeting with ALAC >> 6. NCSG meeting with SSAC >> 7. NCSG meeting with GAC >> 8. NCSG FC meeting >> 9. NCSG CCWP on Human Rights >> >> We will meet with GAC in their room. Other than that some of the meetings might be held during NCSG Open Session. >> >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 22 13:26:27 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:26:27 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comment on Long Term options to adjust for Reviews timeline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Farzi; this comment looks ready for submission in my opinion. I've made a few edits now, but overall I think it is in good shape! Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 22 July 2018 10:22 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > I made some more changes to this and made it a little more complete and tried to make it coherent. > > I think it is better now. Please comment. Already shared on the mailing list. > > Farzaneh > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:23 AM farzaneh badii wrote: > >> Here is another comment on long term options to adjust reviews timeline >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> >> We need to share with the mailing list soon. Deadline is 31 July. >> >> Best >> >> Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 22 13:41:11 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:41:11 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F6041FEB7@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> Message-ID: I do agree that we should not accept an access model that has been developed informally, in isolation, by one segment of the community, however it seems very likely that this model (or something very similar to it) will be rolled out during the few weeks that the EPDP team has to develop an initial report. So I think an annotated version of their model, laying out what should be our objections to it, would be an incredibly useful resource. Better to work on this now and to be able to immediately table it when their proposal is put forward. If you could produce this Stephanie, it would not be in vain... similarly for the annotated temp spec, this would be very helpful. I think we also need to document somewhere why we think this EPDP is bound for failure (section J, excessive SO/AC participation, etc.) so we can refer back to this in the future when it inevitably happens. One of the issues with the GDPR was that while I know we (or at least Stephanie) had been calling ICANN out for its lack of adherence to the law, there was never a statement I could find, dated a few years in advance, calling for ICANN to comply with the GDPR. I think it would be useful if we prepared a small repository of either the abstentions or a short comment *dated ahead of the first EPDP meeting* that outlined our concerns and fears. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 22 July 2018 5:12 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > yes, they can try but there will be pushback. I think there is also the ICANN org UAM in the mix (for which we need to decide if we will respond or not). I won't speculate now but let's see how things will move in EPDP team and in particular for the gating questions first. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 09:04, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > >> Stephanie >> >> Our stance on this is that we don't accept any accreditation >> /a >> ccess >> model that has not been developed by the community. >> Our >> very first question should b >> e >> whet >> her we need an accreditation model. We >> >> provide our own access model when the opportunity arises. But by no means IPC/BC model can be accepted as a done deal or the only model that can be focused on. >> >> I think other councilors should be on the same page and if this gets discussed at the council support and bring up this view point. >> >> Thanks >> >> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:34 PM Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> as can be seen by the 62 page attachment, the BC and IPC have been busy working on their accreditation model. We have to focus on this fast, it will be brought in as a fait accompli to the EPDP as soon as they can. I will do a markup as soon as I get the markup of the interim spec done....but we need to know who is on the EPDP as soon as possible, and start a new EPDP and observer list. >>> >>> cheers STeph >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model >>> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 21:12:11 +0000 >>> From: Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) [](mailto:FVayra at perkinscoie.com) >>> >>> To: 'accred-model at icann.org' [](mailto:accred-model at icann.org) >>> >>> Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model. >>> >>> Note that Section II has been formatted in a way to mirror the questions posed by ICANN Org in its recent unified access model discussion paper. This version 1.7 is meant to advance the very discussion on the critical need for accreditation and access. >>> >>> Other notable updates to this version 1.7: >>> >>> - The introduction section has been updated. >>> >>> - Annex A is now titled ?Rationale? and edited accordingly. >>> >>> - Annex C is now populated with input from cybersecurity experts. >>> >>> - Annex F (verification and compliance for private parties) is now populated. >>> >>> - Annex G is a discussion on accreditation oversight and types. >>> >>> Again, thank you to those who made helpful contributions to advancing this model. We look forward to a robust discussion and further input. >>> >>> Fabricio Vayra| Perkins Coie LLP >>> >>> PARTNER >>> >>> D. +1.202.654.6255 >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 13:58:03 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 19:58:03 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments Draft to be reviewed Message-ID: Hi all, we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sun Jul 22 16:58:49 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 09:58:49 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F6041FEB7@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> Message-ID: <5a3e0d51-8454-d01c-f089-5354c822abdf@mail.utoronto.ca> Fine, I am still doing a markup because I have to for the standards project.? If anyone wants to read it, let me know. cheers STeph On 2018-07-21 23:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > yes, they can try but there will be pushback. I think there is also > the ICANN org UAM in the mix (for which we need to decide if we will > respond or not). I won't speculate now but let's see how things will > move in EPDP team and in particular for the gating questions first. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le?dim. 22 juil. 2018 ??09:04, farzaneh badii > > a ?crit?: > > Stephanie > > Our stance on this is that we don't accept any accreditation > /a > ccess > model that has not been developed by the community. > Our > very first question should b > e > whet > her we need an accreditation model. We > ? ? > provide our own access model when the opportunity arises. But by > no means IPC/BC model can be accepted as a done deal or the only > model that can be focused on. > > I think other councilors should be on the same page and if this > gets discussed at the council support and bring up this view point. > > Thanks > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:34 PM Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > as can be seen by the 62 page attachment, the BC and IPC have > been busy working on their accreditation model.? We have to > focus on this fast, it will be brought in as a fait accompli > to the EPDP as soon as they can.? I will do a markup as soon > as I get the markup of the interim spec done....but we need to > know who is on the EPDP as soon as possible, and start a new > EPDP and observer list. > > cheers STeph > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and > Access Model > Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 21:12:11 +0000 > From: Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) > > To: 'accred-model at icann.org ' > > > > > Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.7 > of the Accreditation and Access Model. > > Note that Section II has been formatted in a way to mirror the > questions posed by ICANN Org in its recent unified access > model discussion paper.? This version 1.7 is meant to advance > the very discussion on the critical need for accreditation and > access. > > Other notable updates to this version 1.7: > > * The introduction section has been updated. > * Annex A is now titled ?Rationale? and edited accordingly. > * Annex C is now populated with input from cybersecurity > experts. > * Annex F (verification and compliance for private parties) > is now populated. > * Annex G is a discussion on accreditation oversight and types. > > Again, thank you to those who made helpful contributions to > advancing this model.? We look forward to a robust discussion > and further input. > > *Fabricio Vayra****| **Perkins Coie LLP* > > *PARTNER* > > D. +1.202.654.6255 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other > confidential information. If you have received it in error, > please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete > the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing > the contents. Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Sun Jul 22 23:17:32 2018 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 20:17:32 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: <5a3e0d51-8454-d01c-f089-5354c822abdf@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F6041FEB7@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> , <5a3e0d51-8454-d01c-f089-5354c822abdf@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <8702357F-0E0D-45AD-A384-D197142883A9@gatech.edu> I want to see it Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Jul 22, 2018, at 08:59, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: Fine, I am still doing a markup because I have to for the standards project. If anyone wants to read it, let me know. cheers STeph On 2018-07-21 23:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi, yes, they can try but there will be pushback. I think there is also the ICANN org UAM in the mix (for which we need to decide if we will respond or not). I won't speculate now but let's see how things will move in EPDP team and in particular for the gating questions first. Best, Rafik Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 09:04, farzaneh badii > a ?crit : Stephanie Our stance on this is that we don't accept any accreditation /a ccess model that has not been developed by the community. Our very first question should b e whet her we need an accreditation model. We ? ? provide our own access model when the opportunity arises. But by no means IPC/BC model can be accepted as a done deal or the only model that can be focused on. I think other councilors should be on the same page and if this gets discussed at the council support and bring up this view point. Thanks On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:34 PM Stephanie Perrin > wrote: as can be seen by the 62 page attachment, the BC and IPC have been busy working on their accreditation model. We have to focus on this fast, it will be brought in as a fait accompli to the EPDP as soon as they can. I will do a markup as soon as I get the markup of the interim spec done....but we need to know who is on the EPDP as soon as possible, and start a new EPDP and observer list. cheers STeph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 21:12:11 +0000 From: Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) To: 'accred-model at icann.org' Attached for discussion and additional comment is version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model. Note that Section II has been formatted in a way to mirror the questions posed by ICANN Org in its recent unified access model discussion paper. This version 1.7 is meant to advance the very discussion on the critical need for accreditation and access. Other notable updates to this version 1.7: * The introduction section has been updated. * Annex A is now titled ?Rationale? and edited accordingly. * Annex C is now populated with input from cybersecurity experts. * Annex F (verification and compliance for private parties) is now populated. * Annex G is a discussion on accreditation oversight and types. Again, thank you to those who made helpful contributions to advancing this model. We look forward to a robust discussion and further input. Fabricio Vayra| Perkins Coie LLP PARTNER D. +1.202.654.6255 ________________________________ NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 10:49:44 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 03:49:44 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Red Cross Names in all gtlds Message-ID: here we go with another public comment, this time on Red Cross. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit We need to share this with the members very soon I think the deadline is 31 July. Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Mon Jul 23 10:54:43 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 09:54:43 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Red Cross Names in all gtlds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00000942-7061-42B2-BCB0-1962C4DF6ED3@benin2point0.org> Dear Farzaneh, Thanks for drafting this. I have started reading the materials yesterday and as promised I will review it. However, my agenda is very hectic today (returning from a trip) and I can only get back to you by tomorrow. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 23 Jul 2018, at 09:49, farzaneh badii wrote: > > here we go with another public comment, this time on Red Cross. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit > > > We need to share this with the members very soon I think the deadline is 31 July. > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 10:57:52 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 16:57:52 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Red Cross Names in all gtlds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Farzaneh for drafting this. It is quite important topic that, with the IGO-INGO Curative rights that we dropped and didn't follow closely. This comment is a good opportunity to have a say. We should share the draft in NCSG list within this week. Best, Rafik On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 4:50 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > here we go with another public comment, this time on Red Cross. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit > > > We need to share this with the members very soon I think the deadline is > 31 July. > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julf at julf.com Sun Jul 22 14:01:52 2018 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 13:01:52 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Accred-Model] Version 1.7 of the Accreditation and Access Model In-Reply-To: References: <5DF41D02CD9A51468B5A7A0D795B462F6041FEB7@DC2SVPMAIL21.perkinscoie.root.loc> Message-ID: On 22-07-18 12:41, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I think we also need to document somewhere why we think this EPDP is > bound for failure (section J, excessive SO/AC participation, etc.) so we > can refer back to this in the future when it inevitably happens. Indeed. The other thing that inevitably will happen and we need to be prepared for is the "everybody else agree to a reasonable way forward, but it is being blocked by NCSG people just out of principle/because they are anti-business". Julf From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 23 18:35:24 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 11:35:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] great news re EPDP Message-ID: <71f1c98c-8496-3757-bb2f-95d3d58a659c@mail.utoronto.ca> I cannot tell you how happy I am to know that Thomas Rickert will be on the EPDP. cheers Steph The ISPCP leadership team found consensus on the following nominations: ????????? member: Thomas Rickert, eco ? Association of the Internet Industry ????????? member: Esteban Lescano, C?mara Argentina de Internet ? CABASE ????????? alternate: Fiona Assonga, Technology Service Providers Association of Kenya (TESPOK) From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jul 23 18:38:01 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 11:38:01 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] great news re EPDP In-Reply-To: <71f1c98c-8496-3757-bb2f-95d3d58a659c@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <71f1c98c-8496-3757-bb2f-95d3d58a659c@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Esteban is great too....! Outstanding choices from the ISPCP! Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 17:35, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I cannot tell you how happy I am to know that Thomas Rickert will be on > the EPDP. > > cheers Steph > > The ISPCP leadership team found consensus on the following nominations: > ? member: Thomas Rickert, eco ? Association of the Internet Industry > ? member: Esteban Lescano, C?mara Argentina de Internet ? CABASE > ? alternate: Fiona Assonga, Technology Service Providers > Association of Kenya (TESPOK) > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 19:11:57 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 18:11:57 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] great news re EPDP In-Reply-To: References: <71f1c98c-8496-3757-bb2f-95d3d58a659c@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: This is just awesome - super happy with the choices -- and yes agree that Esteban is great! Thanks for the update, Steph. On 23 July 2018 at 17:38, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Esteban is great too....! Outstanding choices from the ISPCP! > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 17:35, Stephanie Perrin utoronto.ca> wrote: > > I cannot tell you how happy I am to know that Thomas Rickert will be on > the EPDP. > > cheers Steph > > > The ISPCP leadership team found consensus on the following nominations: > ? member: Thomas Rickert, eco ? Association of the Internet > Industry > ? member: Esteban Lescano, C?mara Argentina de Internet ? CABASE > ? alternate: Fiona Assonga, Technology Service Providers > Association of Kenya (TESPOK) > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 19:35:00 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 13:35:00 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] great news re EPDP In-Reply-To: References: <71f1c98c-8496-3757-bb2f-95d3d58a659c@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Yeah, both very reasonable and good manner people. A pleasure to work with. Cheers, Mart?n > On 23 Jul 2018, at 13:11, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > This is just awesome - super happy with the choices -- and yes agree that Esteban is great! Thanks for the update, Steph. > > On 23 July 2018 at 17:38, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > Esteban is great too....! Outstanding choices from the ISPCP! > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 17:35, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: >> I cannot tell you how happy I am to know that Thomas Rickert will be on >> the EPDP. >> >> cheers Steph >> >> >> The ISPCP leadership team found consensus on the following nominations: >> ? member: Thomas Rickert, eco ? Association of the Internet Industry >> ? member: Esteban Lescano, C?mara Argentina de Internet ? CABASE >> ? alternate: Fiona Assonga, Technology Service Providers >> Association of Kenya (TESPOK) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Jul 24 01:50:14 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 18:50:14 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: List of NCSG members selected to EPDP team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <170138d7-4821-0aee-55b2-e9a7eeb014b1@kathykleiman.com> An outstanding team!? Tx you Stephanie, Ayden, Farzi, Milton, Julf, Amr, Tatiana, David and Collin for the time and dedication ahead. It is incredible work that you will be doing. Good luck! Kathy On 7/23/2018 6:09 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi all, > > I am sending here on behalf of the selection team the list of NCSG > members to be appointed to EPDP team based on what we received as > expressions of interest from the call for candidates closed in 19th July. > > We would like first to thank all applicants who submitted their > candidature to be considered for the NCSG slots on EPDP team. Having > many applications give us more choices and show a strong interest > among our members to participate in such a process. > > the list is : > > * > > Full members: > > 1. > > Stephanie Perrin > > 2. > > Ayden Ferdeline > > 3. > > Farzaneh Badiei > > 4. > > Milton Mueller > > 5. > > Julf Helsingius > > 6. > > Amr Elsadr > > > Alternates > > 7. > > Tatiana Tropina > > 8. > > David Cake > > 9. > > Collin Kurre > > *Those names will be sent to the GNSO secretariat in order to be added > asap to the process. > > With regard to the coordination with/among the appointed > representatives, discussion within NCSG and involving more NCSG > members in the process, I will send more details later on. > > Best Regards > > Rafik Dammak -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 02:10:49 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:10:49 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: ncsg-pc Hi, Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. Best, Rafik > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Jul 24 05:39:09 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 22:39:09 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: List of NCSG members selected to EPDP team In-Reply-To: <170138d7-4821-0aee-55b2-e9a7eeb014b1@kathykleiman.com> References: <170138d7-4821-0aee-55b2-e9a7eeb014b1@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Thanks Kathy, I do think this is a fantastic team, and I feel a little guilty, as you are toiling away with much less support (although? the support you do have is terrific!) but it is not like your committee is not just as important, deserves a similar effort! cheers Stephanie On 2018-07-23 18:50, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > An outstanding team!? Tx you Stephanie, Ayden, Farzi, Milton, Julf, > Amr, Tatiana, David and Collin for the time and dedication ahead. It > is incredible work that you will be doing. Good luck! > > Kathy > > > On 7/23/2018 6:09 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> hi all, >> >> I am sending here on behalf of the selection team the list of NCSG >> members to be appointed to EPDP team based on what we received as >> expressions of interest from the call for candidates closed in 19th >> July. >> >> We would like first to thank all applicants who submitted their >> candidature to be considered for the NCSG slots on EPDP team. Having >> many applications give us more choices and show a strong interest >> among our members to participate in such a process. >> >> the list is : >> >> * >> >> Full members: >> >> 1. >> >> Stephanie Perrin >> >> 2. >> >> Ayden Ferdeline >> >> 3. >> >> Farzaneh Badiei >> >> 4. >> >> Milton Mueller >> >> 5. >> >> Julf Helsingius >> >> 6. >> >> Amr Elsadr >> >> >> Alternates >> >> 7. >> >> Tatiana Tropina >> >> 8. >> >> David Cake >> >> 9. >> >> Collin Kurre >> >> *Those names will be sent to the GNSO secretariat in order to be >> added asap to the process. >> >> With regard to the coordination with/among the appointed >> representatives, discussion within NCSG and involving more NCSG >> members in the process, I will send more details later on. >> >> Best Regards >> >> Rafik Dammak > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 24 05:53:17 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 22:53:17 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) Hi Rafik, Thanks for initiating this discussion. I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an unexpected email address subscribed... A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last week it had over 500 messages exchanged. As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. Best wishes, Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. > > several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. > > one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? > > for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. > > documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. > > we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. > > please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. > > in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process > To: Stephanie Perrin > Cc: ncsg-pc > > Hi, > > Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. > > I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can > - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list > - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. > - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. > > it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. > > I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. > > Best, > > Rafik > >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Jul 24 06:02:36 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 23:02:36 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik!? I agree that a biweekly call would be helpful, more than that is too much I think.? We do need a back channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I leave it to you techies. I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials.? On the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well.? We also need resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have volunteers who could take this on.? Even just to gather all the supporting documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send when it is done.?? Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... Stephanie On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) > > Hi Rafik, > > Thanks for initiating this discussion. > > I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP > strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only > NCSG members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed?GDPR > list,?an unexpected email address subscribed... > > A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal > Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. > Last week it had over 500 messages exchanged. > > As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the > meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the > transcript. I have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? > and emailed through a number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim > record. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion >> on how to coordinate?NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. >> >> several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for >> tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. >> >> one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP >> reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public >> as we can strategize there.?@Maryam can you please create a new list? >> >> for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for >> example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that >> quickly. >> >> documentation: that point was made several times that we need to >> document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I >> think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP >> members. same for working documents versioning. >> >> we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in >> term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more >> sense. >> >> please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. >> >> in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having >> a documents repository and so on. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: *Rafik Dammak* > > >> Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ??13:43 >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection >> process >> To: Stephanie Perrin > > >> Cc: ncsg-pc > >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear >> from others. >> >> I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes >> PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG?confcall for EPDP? and getting >> regular updates from representatives, we can >> - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by >> the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list >> - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others >> who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. >> - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google >> doc) so we can refer to them easily. >> >> it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to >> setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of >> EPDP.?I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for >> this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. >> >> I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and >> facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient >> and effective.? that also includes all interested people by the topic >> who are observers too. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 24 06:07:23 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 23:07:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Seating of EPDP Alternates Message-ID: Hi all, Just thought I?d start this conversation off now re: how and when we appoint alternates. 1) I think it would be beneficial for the NCSG to have 100% coverage on all calls; wherever possible we should not have calls where there are not 6 NCSG members present. Is this reasonable? 2) How will we appoint alternates? Is this something that should be arranged by the NCSG Chair, or is it an individual responsibility to find an alternate to cover us where we are unavailable? 3) Do we want rotation to be in place to ensure that all alternates are, to the greatest extent possible, invited to be an alternate for an equal number of calls? Or should other factors be considered, i.e. timezone of call/alternate, subject matter? Best wishes, Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 06:34:17 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:34:17 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Seating of EPDP Alternates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, GNSO secretariat will notify the appointed representatives soon and there are some instructions in that welcome messgae. I think there will be a form to be filled by the member and selected alternate. an alternate will then have posting rights to the mailing list and ability to join the call. Best, Rafik Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 12:07, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Hi all, > > Just thought I?d start this conversation off now re: how and when we > appoint alternates. > > 1) I think it would be beneficial for the NCSG to have 100% coverage on > all calls; wherever possible we should not have calls where there are not 6 > NCSG members present. Is this reasonable? > > 2) How will we appoint alternates? Is this something that should be > arranged by the NCSG Chair, or is it an individual responsibility to find > an alternate to cover us where we are unavailable? > > 3) Do we want rotation to be in place to ensure that all alternates are, > to the greatest extent possible, invited to be an alternate for an equal > number of calls? Or should other factors be considered, i.e. timezone of > call/alternate, subject matter? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 06:38:24 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 23:38:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Seating of EPDP Alternates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I just got an email from Terri On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:34 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > GNSO secretariat will notify the appointed representatives soon and there > are some instructions in that welcome messgae. I think there will be a > form to be filled by the member and selected alternate. an alternate will > then have posting rights to the mailing list and ability to join the call. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 12:07, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> Just thought I?d start this conversation off now re: how and when we >> appoint alternates. >> >> 1) I think it would be beneficial for the NCSG to have 100% coverage on >> all calls; wherever possible we should not have calls where there are not 6 >> NCSG members present. Is this reasonable? >> >> 2) How will we appoint alternates? Is this something that should be >> arranged by the NCSG Chair, or is it an individual responsibility to find >> an alternate to cover us where we are unavailable? >> >> 3) Do we want rotation to be in place to ensure that all alternates are, >> to the greatest extent possible, invited to be an alternate for an equal >> number of calls? Or should other factors be considered, i.e. timezone of >> call/alternate, subject matter? >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 24 06:56:05 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 23:56:05 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Seating of EPDP Alternates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Just to clarify, I think we need an internal agreement on how/when we appoint an alternate. I understand there is an org procedure on how we notify the GNSO Secretariat of our selection :-) Best wishes, Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 05:38, farzaneh badii wrote: > I just got an email from Terri > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:34 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> GNSO secretariat will notify the appointed representatives soon and there are some instructions in that welcome messgae. I think there will be a form to be filled by the member and selected alternate. an alternate will then have posting rights to the mailing list and ability to join the call. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 12:07, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Just thought I?d start this conversation off now re: how and when we appoint alternates. >>> >>> 1) I think it would be beneficial for the NCSG to have 100% coverage on all calls; wherever possible we should not have calls where there are not 6 NCSG members present. Is this reasonable? >>> >>> 2) How will we appoint alternates? Is this something that should be arranged by the NCSG Chair, or is it an individual responsibility to find an alternate to cover us where we are unavailable? >>> >>> 3) Do we want rotation to be in place to ensure that all alternates are, to the greatest extent possible, invited to be an alternate for an equal number of calls? Or should other factors be considered, i.e. timezone of call/alternate, subject matter? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 24 07:30:06 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:30:06 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I can start compiling the resources in a Google Doc; I will share it on this list later in the week. Once complete (or complete enough) we can perhaps port to the wiki. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I leave it to you techies. > > I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. > > We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. On the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). > > I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... > > Stephanie > On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) >> >> Hi Rafik, >> >> Thanks for initiating this discussion. >> >> I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an unexpected email address subscribed... >> >> A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last week it had over 500 messages exchanged. >> >> As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. >>> >>> several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. >>> >>> one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? >>> >>> for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. >>> >>> documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. >>> >>> we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. >>> >>> please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. >>> >>> in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Rafik Dammak >>> Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process >>> To: Stephanie Perrin >>> Cc: ncsg-pc >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. >>> >>> I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can >>> - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list >>> - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. >>> - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. >>> >>> it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. >>> >>> I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 24 07:31:42 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:31:42 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: List of NCSG members selected to EPDP team In-Reply-To: References: <170138d7-4821-0aee-55b2-e9a7eeb014b1@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the kind words, Kathy. Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 04:39, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Thanks Kathy, I do think this is a fantastic team, and I feel a little guilty, as you are toiling away with much less support (although the support you do have is terrific!) but it is not like your committee is not just as important, deserves a similar effort! > > cheers Stephanie > > On 2018-07-23 18:50, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > >> An outstanding team! Tx you Stephanie, Ayden, Farzi, Milton, Julf, Amr, Tatiana, David and Collin for the time and dedication ahead. It is incredible work that you will be doing. Good luck! >> >> Kathy >> >> On 7/23/2018 6:09 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> I am sending here on behalf of the selection team the list of NCSG members to be appointed to EPDP team based on what we received as expressions of interest from the call for candidates closed in 19th July. >>> >>> We would like first to thank all applicants who submitted their candidature to be considered for the NCSG slots on EPDP team. Having many applications give us more choices and show a strong interest among our members to participate in such a process. >>> >>> the list is : >>> >>> Full members: >>> >>> - >>> >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> >>> - >>> >>> Ayden Ferdeline >>> >>> - >>> >>> Farzaneh Badiei >>> >>> - >>> >>> Milton Mueller >>> >>> - >>> >>> Julf Helsingius >>> >>> - >>> >>> Amr Elsadr >>> >>> Alternates >>> >>> - >>> >>> Tatiana Tropina >>> >>> - >>> >>> David Cake >>> >>> - >>> >>> Collin Kurre >>> >>> Those names will be sent to the GNSO secretariat in order to be added asap to the process. >>> >>> With regard to the coordination with/among the appointed representatives, discussion within NCSG and involving more NCSG members in the process, I will send more details later on. >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> Rafik Dammak >> >> _______________________________________________NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 09:37:42 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 02:37:42 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] IoT public Comment Message-ID: Here was an easy public comment which I drafted. Please comment and put it up on the NCSG mailing list. I will be going on holiday on 3 August so I probably won't be able to see it off but it is pretty easy:1. We support the prolongation of timing for filing a claim at IRP against ICANN 2. We support the modification of text that has removed the previous time limit within which the claimant can file against ICANN. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit I thank the previous drafters of the first comment. They made my copy paste easier :) [of course in quotation marks] I might not be able to resolve comments if they happen after 3rd. If something extraordinary comes up please try to fix it. Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Tue Jul 24 09:53:04 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:53:04 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> Dear Rafik, You are very strong, do you ever get a rest? I am sure you missed your vocational job as a soldier.. LOL.. Thanks for bringing this, indeed we need to go forward. I agree with Steph on the bi-weekly plan so that we do not get (a) burden too soon but also have materials to discuss after two weeks. I am ok with Ayden suggestions, too. Good EPDP team. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I leave it to you techies. > > I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. > > We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. On the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). > I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... > > Stephanie > On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) >> >> Hi Rafik, >> >> Thanks for initiating this discussion. >> >> I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an unexpected email address subscribed... >> >> A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last week it had over 500 messages exchanged. >> >> As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. >>> >>> several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. >>> >>> one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? >>> >>> for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. >>> >>> documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. >>> >>> we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. >>> >>> please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. >>> >>> in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Rafik Dammak > >>> Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process >>> To: Stephanie Perrin > >>> Cc: ncsg-pc > >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. >>> >>> I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can >>> - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list >>> - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. >>> - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. >>> >>> it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. >>> >>> I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 09:58:22 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 15:58:22 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] IoT public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, Thanks for drafting this comment and covering it. happy to handle comments/edits when you will be in holidays. we will schedule when sharing this in NCSG list as we already have some comments in the pipeline already(a little bit too much in the same time) Best, Rafik Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 15:38, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Here was an easy public comment which I drafted. Please comment and put it > up on the NCSG mailing list. I will be going on holiday on 3 August so I > probably won't be able to see it off but it is pretty easy:1. We support > the prolongation of timing for filing a claim at IRP against ICANN > > 2. We support the modification of text that has removed the previous time > limit within which the claimant can file against ICANN. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit > > I thank the previous drafters of the first comment. They made my copy > paste easier :) [of course in quotation marks] > > I might not be able to resolve comments if they happen after 3rd. If > something extraordinary comes up please try to fix it. > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 10:05:56 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 16:05:56 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for endorsement: - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing , - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit Best, Rafik Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > > we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: > > - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit > - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit > - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, > that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. > - Long-term Option, 31st July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit > - Short-term Options, 31st July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit > > please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Tue Jul 24 10:14:39 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:14:39 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Red Cross Names in all gtlds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D98348C-143C-4B3A-AA4A-70A818677E1B@benin2point0.org> Dear Farzaneh Badii, I reviewed your work and you did great as usual. Before reading your comments (I didn?t read our report in 2013, sorry), I was questioning myself on why one would recommend reservation of those names : (191 countries times all names variants) of DNS strings. Quite a lot that could never be used. I thought that as NGO/IGO they had a discussion with NCSG and NCSG admitted for a special case. I am happy that it is not the case. I have no objection after reading your proposal. Most of my comments were about Specification 5, the finite list of identifiers and especially about the DNS strings, and whether each country was contacted to validate the DNS string computed by the algorithm after they had submitted their ?Red Cross names?. I have a problem with some if not most. On a separate note, have we ever planned for a specific strategy in our outreaches to target those IGOs so that they have a rep (without a double voting capacity - LOL) within NCSG at earlier stage and be included in the discussions for the sake of more diversity and inclusiveness, or we just always conduct generic outreaches and let any Org to come us? Have a nice. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 23 Jul 2018, at 09:49, farzaneh badii wrote: > > here we go with another public comment, this time on Red Cross. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit > > > We need to share this with the members very soon I think the deadline is 31 July. > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Tue Jul 24 10:18:54 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:18:54 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] IoT public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Farzaneh, I?ve reviewed this and have no comment, except changing IoT to IOT, :P. It, firstly, misled me think about Internet of Things ;) but I have done my homework. I wish you a good holiday, already. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 24 Jul 2018, at 08:37, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Here was an easy public comment which I drafted. Please comment and put it up on the NCSG mailing list. I will be going on holiday on 3 August so I probably won't be able to see it off but it is pretty easy:1. We support the prolongation of timing for filing a claim at IRP against ICANN > > 2. We support the modification of text that has removed the previous time limit within which the claimant can file against ICANN. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit > > I thank the previous drafters of the first comment. They made my copy paste easier :) [of course in quotation marks] > > I might not be able to resolve comments if they happen after 3rd. If something extraordinary comes up please try to fix it. > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Tue Jul 24 10:20:50 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:20:50 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <716D7006-6BD6-46A4-AFF3-801235CF7FA9@benin2point0.org> Dear Rafik, I am ok with all but SSAC2 that I still need to review once more. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Ekue (Farell) FOLLY Technology Champion & Chapter Head Africa 2.0 Foundation. www.africa2point0.org linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for endorsement: > > [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit > [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit > [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing , > Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit > Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit > Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit > The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak > a ?crit : > Hi all, > > we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: > SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit > Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit > Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing , that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. > Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit > Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit > please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Tue Jul 24 15:21:42 2018 From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:21:42 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Ext] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, A wiki page has been created and partially populated for NCSG EPDP activities: https://community.icann.org/x/FQNpBQ A mailing list has also been created with the Archives set to private (only visible to list members): https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/epdp -- Many thanks, Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator ICANN | Internet Corporation got Assigned Names and Numbers S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: +44 7846 471777 From: Rafik Dammak Date: Tuesday, 24 July 2018 at 00:11 To: NCSG PC Cc: Maryam Bakoshi Subject: [Ext] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" Hi all, as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rafik Dammak > Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process To: Stephanie Perrin > Cc: ncsg-pc > Hi, Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 24 15:51:30 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:51:30 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Ext] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Maryam! Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 13:21, Maryam Bakoshi wrote: > Dear All, > > A wiki page has been created and partially populated for NCSG EPDP activities:https://community.icann.org/x/FQNpBQ > > A mailing list has also been created with the Archives set to private (only visible to list members):https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/epdp > > -- > > Many thanks, > > Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator > > ICANN | Internet Corporation got Assigned Names and Numbers > > S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: +44 7846 471777 > > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: Tuesday, 24 July 2018 at 00:11 > To: NCSG PC > Cc: Maryam Bakoshi > Subject: [Ext] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" > > Hi all, > > as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. > > several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. > > one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? > > for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. > > documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. > > we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. > > please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. > > in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process > To: Stephanie Perrin > Cc: ncsg-pc > > Hi, > > Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. > > I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can > > - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list > > - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. > > - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. > > it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. > > I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. > > Best, > > Rafik > >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Jul 24 16:24:25 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:24:25 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Seating of EPDP Alternates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree that we need 100% coverage whenever possible.? I think that how we arrange alternates will depend on frequency of calls, time rotation of calls (so far based on the doodle poll, not seeming much flexibility in the timing) and how people prefer to work.? I doubt that all the calls will happen to be in the middle of the night for me because the two most popular time zones are likely to be (based on overall composition) California and Washington.? I think perhaps we can do like we do for Council, let people select their alternative?? I expect a lot of these calls are going to be (as usual) in the middle of the night for David, we should perhaps be preparing a wee map of our timezones.... cheers Steph On 2018-07-23 23:07, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi all, > > Just thought I?d start this conversation off now re: how and when we > appoint alternates. > > 1)?I think it would be beneficial for the NCSG to have 100% coverage > on all calls; wherever possible?we should not have calls where there > are not 6 NCSG members present. Is this reasonable? > > 2) How will we appoint alternates? Is this something that should be > arranged by the NCSG Chair, or is it an individual responsibility to > find an alternate to cover us where we are unavailable? > > 3) Do we want rotation to be in place to ensure that all alternates > are, to the greatest extent possible, invited to be an alternate for > an equal number of calls? Or should other factors be considered, i.e. > timezone of call/alternate, subject matter? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Jul 24 17:41:54 2018 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:41:54 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] IoT public Comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <85d76043-ad84-169f-1891-94fde1d275cd@kathykleiman.com> I support this comment.? This comment period is for the first stage of upcoming changes to the Independent Review Process (the appeal of ICANN decisions) and it's about timing (many more changes to come in future proposed revisions).? Tx Farzi and important comments! Best, Kathy On 7/24/2018 2:37 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > Here was an easy public comment which I drafted. Please comment and > put it up on the NCSG mailing list. I will be going on holiday on 3 > August so I probably won't be able to see it off but it is pretty > easy:1. We support the prolongation of timing for filing a claim at > IRP against ICANN > > 2. We support the modification of text that has removed the previous > time limit within which the claimant can file against ICANN. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit > > I thank the previous drafters of the first comment. They made my copy > paste easier :) [of course in quotation marks] > > I might not be able to resolve comments if they happen after 3rd. If > something extraordinary comes up please?try to fix it. > > > Farzaneh > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 24 18:05:30 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:05:30 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] IoT public Comment In-Reply-To: <85d76043-ad84-169f-1891-94fde1d275cd@kathykleiman.com> References: <85d76043-ad84-169f-1891-94fde1d275cd@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: I also support the submission of this comment; thanks so much for drafting it, Farzi. I've made a number of small edits to the language and formatting. I'm a stickler for dates, page numbers, Oxford commas, and consistent vocabulary, so please forgive me for overloading the Google Doc with minor, pedantic edits. Like Farell, I also confused the acronym 'IoT' for the Internet of Things, so I've spelled it out now -- I certainly would not have guessed it referred to an Implementation Oversight Team :P Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 24 July 2018 3:41 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > I support this comment. This comment period is for the first stage of upcoming changes to the Independent Review Process (the appeal of ICANN decisions) and it's about timing (many more changes to come in future proposed revisions). Tx Farzi and important comments! > > Best, Kathy > > On 7/24/2018 2:37 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > >> Here was an easy public comment which I drafted. Please comment and put it up on the NCSG mailing list. I will be going on holiday on 3 August so I probably won't be able to see it off but it is pretty easy:1. We support the prolongation of timing for filing a claim at IRP against ICANN >> >> 2. We support the modification of text that has removed the previous time limit within which the claimant can file against ICANN. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >> >> I thank the previous drafters of the first comment. They made my copy paste easier :) [of course in quotation marks] >> >> I might not be able to resolve comments if they happen after 3rd. If something extraordinary comes up please try to fix it. >> >> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 18:28:01 2018 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 17:28:01 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] IoT public Comment In-Reply-To: References: <85d76043-ad84-169f-1891-94fde1d275cd@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: I support this comment! ----------------- Ars?ne Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > On Jul 24, 2018, at 5:05 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I also support the submission of this comment; thanks so much for drafting it, Farzi. > > I've made a number of small edits to the language and formatting. I'm a stickler for dates, page numbers, Oxford commas, and consistent vocabulary, so please forgive me for overloading the Google Doc with minor, pedantic edits. > > Like Farell, I also confused the acronym 'IoT' for the Internet of Things, so I've spelled it out now -- I certainly would not have guessed it referred to an Implementation Oversight Team :P > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 24 July 2018 3:41 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >> I support this comment. This comment period is for the first stage of upcoming changes to the Independent Review Process (the appeal of ICANN decisions) and it's about timing (many more changes to come in future proposed revisions). Tx Farzi and important comments! >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> >>> On 7/24/2018 2:37 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> Here was an easy public comment which I drafted. Please comment and put it up on the NCSG mailing list. I will be going on holiday on 3 August so I probably won't be able to see it off but it is pretty easy:1. We support the prolongation of timing for filing a claim at IRP against ICANN >>> >>> 2. We support the modification of text that has removed the previous time limit within which the claimant can file against ICANN. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >>> >>> I thank the previous drafters of the first comment. They made my copy paste easier :) [of course in quotation marks] >>> >>> I might not be able to resolve comments if they happen after 3rd. If something extraordinary comes up please try to fix it. >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 24 19:54:48 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:54:48 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> References: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: All of the proposed times for the first EPDP call next week are very convenient for Europe and North America, and dreadful for Japan. The call would be beginning, at the earliest, at 1:00am in Tokyo, which is not ideal for Rafik. So let's make sure our NCSG calls, at least, are at a sensible hour for everyone! I'm even prepared to set my alarm for 6am for you, Rafik... Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 24 July 2018 7:53 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: > Dear Rafik, > > You are very strong, do you ever get a rest? I am sure you missed your vocational job as a soldier.. LOL.. > > Thanks for bringing this, indeed we need to go forward. I agree with Steph on the bi-weekly plan so that we do not get (a) burden too soon but also have materials to discuss after two weeks. I am ok with Ayden suggestions, too. Good EPDP team. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > >> On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I leave it to you techies. >> >> I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. >> >> We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. On the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). >> >> I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... >> >> Stephanie >> On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) >>> >>> Hi Rafik, >>> >>> Thanks for initiating this discussion. >>> >>> I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an unexpected email address subscribed... >>> >>> A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last week it had over 500 messages exchanged. >>> >>> As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. >>>> >>>> several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. >>>> >>>> one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? >>>> >>>> for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. >>>> >>>> documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. >>>> >>>> we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. >>>> >>>> please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. >>>> >>>> in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>> Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process >>>> To: Stephanie Perrin >>>> Cc: ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. >>>> >>>> I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can >>>> - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list >>>> - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. >>>> - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. >>>> >>>> it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. >>>> >>>> I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 19:57:08 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:57:08 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: We used to have rotating times in other groups to distribute the pain. Is it the same for this group? On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:54 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > All of the proposed times for the first EPDP call next week are very > convenient for Europe and North America, and dreadful for Japan. The call > would be beginning, at the earliest, at 1:00am in Tokyo, which is not ideal > for Rafik. So let's make sure our NCSG calls, at least, are at a sensible > hour for everyone! I'm even prepared to set my alarm for 6am for you, > Rafik... > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 24 July 2018 7:53 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: > > Dear Rafik, > > You are very strong, do you ever get a rest? I am sure you missed your > vocational job as a soldier.. LOL.. > > > Thanks for bringing this, indeed we need to go forward. I agree with Steph > on the bi-weekly plan so that we do not get (a) burden too soon but also > have materials to discuss after two weeks. I am ok with Ayden suggestions, > too. Good EPDP team. > > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote: > > Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call > would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back > channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I > leave it to you techies. > > I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is > tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. > > We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. On > the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need > resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have > volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting > documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). > I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send > when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with > the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... > > Stephanie > On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) > > Hi Rafik, > > Thanks for initiating this discussion. > > I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP strategising. > We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG members > subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an unexpected email > address subscribed... > > A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal Skype > chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last week it > had over 500 messages exchanged. > > As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the > meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I > have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a > number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi all, > > as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how > to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. > > several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks > (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. > > one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps > and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can > strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? > > for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for > example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that > quickly. > > documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document > positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can > be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for > working documents versioning. > > we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term > of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. > > please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. > > in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a > documents repository and so on. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Rafik Dammak* > Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection > process > To: Stephanie Perrin > Cc: ncsg-pc > > > Hi, > > Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from > others. > > I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC > monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular > updates from representatives, we can > - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the > topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list > - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who > want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. > - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) > so we can refer to them easily. > > it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup > this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also > mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep > things bearable for everyone. > > I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate > the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. > that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers > too. > > Best, > > Rafik > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 24 19:59:10 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:59:10 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: I imagine so, I think it is just awkward timing for the first week. I will definitely raise the need for rotation on our call, if it is not mentioned by the Chair. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 24 July 2018 5:57 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > We used to have rotating times in other groups to distribute the pain. Is it the same for this group? > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:54 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> All of the proposed times for the first EPDP call next week are very convenient for Europe and North America, and dreadful for Japan. The call would be beginning, at the earliest, at 1:00am in Tokyo, which is not ideal for Rafik. So let's make sure our NCSG calls, at least, are at a sensible hour for everyone! I'm even prepared to set my alarm for 6am for you, Rafik... >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 24 July 2018 7:53 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: >> >>> Dear Rafik, >>> >>> You are very strong, do you ever get a rest? I am sure you missed your vocational job as a soldier.. LOL.. >>> >>> Thanks for bringing this, indeed we need to go forward. I agree with Steph on the bi-weekly plan so that we do not get (a) burden too soon but also have materials to discuss after two weeks. I am ok with Ayden suggestions, too. Good EPDP team. >>> >>> @__f_f__ >>> >>> Best Regards >>> ____________________________________ >>> >>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>> www.africa2point0.org >>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>> >>>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I leave it to you techies. >>>> >>>> I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. >>>> >>>> We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. On the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). >>>> >>>> I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... >>>> >>>> Stephanie >>>> On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) >>>>> >>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for initiating this discussion. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an unexpected email address subscribed... >>>>> >>>>> A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last week it had over 500 messages exchanged. >>>>> >>>>> As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. >>>>>> >>>>>> several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. >>>>>> >>>>>> one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? >>>>>> >>>>>> for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. >>>>>> >>>>>> documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. >>>>>> >>>>>> we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. >>>>>> >>>>>> in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>>>> Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process >>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin >>>>>> Cc: ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. >>>>>> >>>>>> I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can >>>>>> - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list >>>>>> - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. >>>>>> - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. >>>>>> >>>>>> it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. >>>>>> >>>>>> I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 19:59:38 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:59:38 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: I meant can it be on rotation basis? It's one thing to take doodle poll and go with majority but I honestly think putting a burden on majority even is Justified. On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:57 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > We used to have rotating times in other groups to distribute the pain. Is > it the same for this group? > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:54 PM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> All of the proposed times for the first EPDP call next week are very >> convenient for Europe and North America, and dreadful for Japan. The call >> would be beginning, at the earliest, at 1:00am in Tokyo, which is not ideal >> for Rafik. So let's make sure our NCSG calls, at least, are at a sensible >> hour for everyone! I'm even prepared to set my alarm for 6am for you, >> Rafik... >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 24 July 2018 7:53 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: >> >> Dear Rafik, >> >> You are very strong, do you ever get a rest? I am sure you missed your >> vocational job as a soldier.. LOL.. >> >> >> Thanks for bringing this, indeed we need to go forward. I agree with >> Steph on the bi-weekly plan so that we do not get (a) burden too soon but >> also have materials to discuss after two weeks. I am ok with Ayden >> suggestions, too. Good EPDP team. >> >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote: >> >> Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call >> would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back >> channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I >> leave it to you techies. >> >> I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is >> tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. >> >> We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. >> On the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need >> resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have >> volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting >> documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). >> I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send >> when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with >> the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... >> >> Stephanie >> On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) >> >> Hi Rafik, >> >> Thanks for initiating this discussion. >> >> I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP >> strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG >> members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an >> unexpected email address subscribed... >> >> A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal >> Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last >> week it had over 500 messages exchanged. >> >> As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the >> meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I >> have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a >> number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on >> how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. >> >> several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks >> (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. >> >> one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps >> and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can >> strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? >> >> for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for >> example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that >> quickly. >> >> documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document >> positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can >> be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for >> working documents versioning. >> >> we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in >> term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. >> >> please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. >> >> in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a >> documents repository and so on. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: *Rafik Dammak* >> Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection >> process >> To: Stephanie Perrin >> Cc: ncsg-pc >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from >> others. >> >> I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC >> monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular >> updates from representatives, we can >> - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the >> topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list >> - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who >> want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. >> - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) >> so we can refer to them easily. >> >> it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to >> setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am >> also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep >> things bearable for everyone. >> >> I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate >> the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. >> that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers >> too. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- > Farzaneh > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 24 20:02:36 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 13:02:36 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: <7xC_4kLocE7zelO-c3ZJdnnVkMwZhWRAi6shOzXg0NLftzl0ljwWE5_o6FCApDmrsawGiByfDR-kjD3j02CYoQ7gFkr0zWt88sFvs8HsM90=@ferdeline.com> Actually, I want to re-word what I just sent: I hope it is just awkward timing for the first week. I imagine, given most participants are clustered in either Europe or the East Coast [of the States], that there will be a desire to have a convenient time for the bulk of the membership. It would also seem sensible to me to have a consistent time for calls, so people can plan ahead. But rotation is only fair. We had rotation for the RDS PDP WG, and it was never fair for Asia-Pacific -- it was 3 calls a month convenient for Europe/North America, then 1 call a month that was better for the bulk of the world's population. That is not ideal but better than nothing. We have to have rotation of some kind, to be fair... Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 24 July 2018 5:59 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I imagine so, I think it is just awkward timing for the first week. > > I will definitely raise the need for rotation on our call, if it is not mentioned by the Chair. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 24 July 2018 5:57 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: > >> We used to have rotating times in other groups to distribute the pain. Is it the same for this group? >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:54 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> All of the proposed times for the first EPDP call next week are very convenient for Europe and North America, and dreadful for Japan. The call would be beginning, at the earliest, at 1:00am in Tokyo, which is not ideal for Rafik. So let's make sure our NCSG calls, at least, are at a sensible hour for everyone! I'm even prepared to set my alarm for 6am for you, Rafik... >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 24 July 2018 7:53 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Rafik, >>>> >>>> You are very strong, do you ever get a rest? I am sure you missed your vocational job as a soldier.. LOL.. >>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing this, indeed we need to go forward. I agree with Steph on the bi-weekly plan so that we do not get (a) burden too soon but also have materials to discuss after two weeks. I am ok with Ayden suggestions, too. Good EPDP team. >>>> >>>> @__f_f__ >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> >>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>> >>>>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I leave it to you techies. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. >>>>> >>>>> We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. On the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). >>>>> >>>>> I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... >>>>> >>>>> Stephanie >>>>> On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for initiating this discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an unexpected email address subscribed... >>>>>> >>>>>> A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last week it had over 500 messages exchanged. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process >>>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>> Cc: ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can >>>>>>> - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list >>>>>>> - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. >>>>>>> - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> -- >> Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 20:07:08 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 13:07:08 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Seating of EPDP Alternates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi So our agreements can be as follows: 1. Members have to assign an alternate for any meeting they cannot attend. 2. They need to announce on ncsg epdp list. And announce the alternate. 3. Preferably if two members cannot attend the same meeting need to assign two different alternates. If two members have chosen the same alternate they should agree among themselves to assign an additional alternate. 4. Preferably no one alternate should represent two members at the same meeting. 5. If the alternates cannot attend either, the world will come to an end and we don't even have to discuss epdp On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:24 AM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > I agree that we need 100% coverage whenever possible. I think that how we > arrange alternates will depend on frequency of calls, time rotation of > calls (so far based on the doodle poll, not seeming much flexibility in the > timing) and how people prefer to work. I doubt that all the calls will > happen to be in the middle of the night for me because the two most popular > time zones are likely to be (based on overall composition) California and > Washington. I think perhaps we can do like we do for Council, let people > select their alternative? I expect a lot of these calls are going to be > (as usual) in the middle of the night for David, we should perhaps be > preparing a wee map of our timezones.... > > cheers Steph > On 2018-07-23 23:07, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi all, > > Just thought I?d start this conversation off now re: how and when we > appoint alternates. > > 1) I think it would be beneficial for the NCSG to have 100% coverage on > all calls; wherever possible we should not have calls where there are not 6 > NCSG members present. Is this reasonable? > > 2) How will we appoint alternates? Is this something that should be > arranged by the NCSG Chair, or is it an individual responsibility to find > an alternate to cover us where we are unavailable? > > 3) Do we want rotation to be in place to ensure that all alternates are, > to the greatest extent possible, invited to be an alternate for an equal > number of calls? Or should other factors be considered, i.e. timezone of > call/alternate, subject matter? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 06:00:58 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 12:00:58 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] IoT public Comment In-Reply-To: References: <85d76043-ad84-169f-1891-94fde1d275cd@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: thanks all for review and expression of support for this comment. I would like to kindly remind that we have 3 public comments scheduled for this Friday that needs review: https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/2018-July/002295.html Best, Rafik Le mer. 25 juil. 2018 ? 00:28, Ars?ne Tungali a ?crit : > I support this comment! > > ----------------- > Ars?ne Tungali, > about.me/ArseneTungali > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Jul 24, 2018, at 5:05 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I also support the submission of this comment; thanks so much for drafting > it, Farzi. > > I've made a number of small edits to the language and formatting. I'm a > stickler for dates, page numbers, Oxford commas, and consistent vocabulary, > so please forgive me for overloading the Google Doc with minor, pedantic > edits. > > Like Farell, I also confused the acronym 'IoT' for the Internet of Things, > so I've spelled it out now -- I certainly would not have guessed it > referred to an Implementation Oversight Team :P > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 24 July 2018 3:41 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > I support this comment. This comment period is for the first stage of > upcoming changes to the Independent Review Process (the appeal of ICANN > decisions) and it's about timing (many more changes to come in future > proposed revisions). Tx Farzi and important comments! > > Best, Kathy > > On 7/24/2018 2:37 AM, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Here was an easy public comment which I drafted. Please comment and put it > up on the NCSG mailing list. I will be going on holiday on 3 August so I > probably won't be able to see it off but it is pretty easy:1. We support > the prolongation of timing for filing a claim at IRP against ICANN > > 2. We support the modification of text that has removed the previous time > limit within which the claimant can file against ICANN. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit > > I thank the previous drafters of the first comment. They made my copy > paste easier :) [of course in quotation marks] > > I might not be able to resolve comments if they happen after 3rd. If > something extraordinary comes up please try to fix it. > > > Farzaneh > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Wed Jul 25 06:17:38 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:17:38 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Seating of EPDP Alternates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0A9BFE52-8D84-45B3-868A-97CF9D605749@davecake.net> > On 24 Jul 2018, at 11:07 am, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi all, > > Just thought I?d start this conversation off now re: how and when we appoint alternates. > > 1) I think it would be beneficial for the NCSG to have 100% coverage on all calls; wherever possible we should not have calls where there are not 6 NCSG members present. Is this reasonable? I agree. We should always use an alternate where we can. > > 2) How will we appoint alternates? Is this something that should be arranged by the NCSG Chair, or is it an individual responsibility to find an alternate to cover us where we are unavailable? > 3) Do we want rotation to be in place to ensure that all alternates are, to the greatest extent possible, invited to be an alternate for an equal number of calls? Or should other factors be considered, i.e. timezone of call/alternate, subject matter? I am not concerned with being on an equal number of calls, and I think both timezone (as usual, I expect some calls to be on at an insane time for my timezone, often 3am or 4am, I obviously would prefer to avoid those calls) and subject matter (EG I am not a lawyer) would be appropriate. There may even be cases where we may wish to sub in alternates just for subject matter expertise (eg Tatiana and myself for different aspects of cybersecurity), though in general I have full confidence that our full delegates between them will cover the areas excellently. David -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 06:31:06 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 12:31:06 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Seating of EPDP Alternates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, looks ok. I am just for keeping it simple :) unless we may have several members missing many calls in a row, everything should be ok and we get enough coverage with 3 alternates. Best, Rafik Le mer. 25 juil. 2018 ? 02:07, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Hi > > So our agreements can be as follows: > > 1. Members have to assign an alternate for any meeting they cannot attend. > > 2. They need to announce on ncsg epdp list. And announce the alternate. > > 3. Preferably if two members cannot attend the same meeting need to assign > two different alternates. If two members have chosen the same alternate > they should agree among themselves to assign an additional alternate. > > 4. Preferably no one alternate should represent two members at the same > meeting. > > 5. If the alternates cannot attend either, the world will come to an end > and we don't even have to discuss epdp > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:24 AM Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> I agree that we need 100% coverage whenever possible. I think that how >> we arrange alternates will depend on frequency of calls, time rotation of >> calls (so far based on the doodle poll, not seeming much flexibility in the >> timing) and how people prefer to work. I doubt that all the calls will >> happen to be in the middle of the night for me because the two most popular >> time zones are likely to be (based on overall composition) California and >> Washington. I think perhaps we can do like we do for Council, let people >> select their alternative? I expect a lot of these calls are going to be >> (as usual) in the middle of the night for David, we should perhaps be >> preparing a wee map of our timezones.... >> >> cheers Steph >> On 2018-07-23 23:07, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Just thought I?d start this conversation off now re: how and when we >> appoint alternates. >> >> 1) I think it would be beneficial for the NCSG to have 100% coverage on >> all calls; wherever possible we should not have calls where there are not 6 >> NCSG members present. Is this reasonable? >> >> 2) How will we appoint alternates? Is this something that should be >> arranged by the NCSG Chair, or is it an individual responsibility to find >> an alternate to cover us where we are unavailable? >> >> 3) Do we want rotation to be in place to ensure that all alternates are, >> to the greatest extent possible, invited to be an alternate for an equal >> number of calls? Or should other factors be considered, i.e. timezone of >> call/alternate, subject matter? >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Wed Jul 25 06:59:07 2018 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:59:07 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: <7xC_4kLocE7zelO-c3ZJdnnVkMwZhWRAi6shOzXg0NLftzl0ljwWE5_o6FCApDmrsawGiByfDR-kjD3j02CYoQ7gFkr0zWt88sFvs8HsM90=@ferdeline.com> References: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> <7xC_4kLocE7zelO-c3ZJdnnVkMwZhWRAi6shOzXg0NLftzl0ljwWE5_o6FCApDmrsawGiByfDR-kjD3j02CYoQ7gFkr0zWt88sFvs8HsM90=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <0CB765D0-0BF0-4358-A4E8-63ED1D0C67AE@davecake.net> That every group has alternates bodes pretty well for a reasonable approach to timing rotation - hopefully everyone has scattered their membership/alternates over the time zones a little. Its a thing I always say, that my time zone is by FAR the most populous single time zone (24% of the worlds population), yet consistently among the worst served by ICANN processes. David > On 25 Jul 2018, at 1:02 am, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Actually, I want to re-word what I just sent: I hope it is just awkward timing for the first week. I imagine, given most participants are clustered in either Europe or the East Coast [of the States], that there will be a desire to have a convenient time for the bulk of the membership. It would also seem sensible to me to have a consistent time for calls, so people can plan ahead. But rotation is only fair. We had rotation for the RDS PDP WG, and it was never fair for Asia-Pacific -- it was 3 calls a month convenient for Europe/North America, then 1 call a month that was better for the bulk of the world's population. That is not ideal but better than nothing. We have to have rotation of some kind, to be fair... > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 24 July 2018 5:59 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> I imagine so, I think it is just awkward timing for the first week. >> >> I will definitely raise the need for rotation on our call, if it is not mentioned by the Chair. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 24 July 2018 5:57 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> We used to have rotating times in other groups to distribute the pain. Is it the same for this group? >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:54 PM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >>> All of the proposed times for the first EPDP call next week are very convenient for Europe and North America, and dreadful for Japan. The call would be beginning, at the earliest, at 1:00am in Tokyo, which is not ideal for Rafik. So let's make sure our NCSG calls, at least, are at a sensible hour for everyone! I'm even prepared to set my alarm for 6am for you, Rafik... >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 24 July 2018 7:53 AM, Farell FOLLY > wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Rafik, >>>> >>>> You are very strong, do you ever get a rest? I am sure you missed your vocational job as a soldier.. LOL.. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing this, indeed we need to go forward. I agree with Steph on the bi-weekly plan so that we do not get (a) burden too soon but also have materials to discuss after two weeks. I am ok with Ayden suggestions, too. Good EPDP team. >>>> >>>> >>>> @__f_f__ >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> >>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I leave it to you techies. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. >>>>> >>>>> We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. On the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). >>>>> >>>>> I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... >>>>> >>>>> Stephanie >>>>> On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for initiating this discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an unexpected email address subscribed... >>>>>> >>>>>> A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last week it had over 500 messages exchanged. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>> From: Rafik Dammak > >>>>>>> Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process >>>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin > >>>>>>> Cc: ncsg-pc > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can >>>>>>> - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list >>>>>>> - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. >>>>>>> - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 07:08:46 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:08:46 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> References: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi all, the wiki space was created and can be used already to add any resources or material. I understand that Ayden is compiling the resources to share by end of this week. skype channel is also created and we can add people by invitation. the mailing list is already created and should be used. I will share info in NCSG list for those who want to join in addition to other details related to EPDP team. Maryam as admin manages the request and check if the requestor is a member or not. for the bi-weekly call, I am for selecting a day/time so we can schedule for several weeks ahead, I will wait to see what will be the EPDP team own calendar before. One tentative day is Tuesday but not in the same week when we have Council call e.g. that will be NCSG Policy call instead. I see we got one task suggested: comparing recordings and transcripts. any other task to propose? Best, Rafik Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 15:53, Farell FOLLY a ?crit : > Dear Rafik, > > You are very strong, do you ever get a rest? I am sure you missed your > vocational job as a soldier.. LOL.. > > > Thanks for bringing this, indeed we need to go forward. I agree with Steph > on the bi-weekly plan so that we do not get (a) burden too soon but also > have materials to discuss after two weeks. I am ok with Ayden suggestions, > too. Good EPDP team. > > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > > On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote: > > Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call > would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back > channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I > leave it to you techies. > > I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is > tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. > > We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. On > the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need > resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have > volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting > documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). > I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send > when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with > the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... > > Stephanie > On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) > > Hi Rafik, > > Thanks for initiating this discussion. > > I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP strategising. > We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG members > subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an unexpected email > address subscribed... > > A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal Skype > chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last week it > had over 500 messages exchanged. > > As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the > meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I > have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a > number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi all, > > as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how > to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. > > several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks > (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. > > one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps > and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can > strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? > > for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for > example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that > quickly. > > documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document > positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can > be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for > working documents versioning. > > we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term > of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. > > please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. > > in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a > documents repository and so on. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Rafik Dammak > Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection > process > To: Stephanie Perrin > Cc: ncsg-pc > > > Hi, > > Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from > others. > > I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC > monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular > updates from representatives, we can > - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the > topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list > - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who > want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. > - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) > so we can refer to them easily. > > it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup > this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also > mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep > things bearable for everyone. > > I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate > the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. > that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers > too. > > Best, > > Rafik > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Wed Jul 25 11:49:08 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 10:49:08 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Seating of EPDP Alternates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, I will also go for simplicity and suggest to circumvent all the formal kinds of stuff that an EPDP member have to do: designate an alternate and so on and so forth. All nine members will be on the same list, therefore; when a member is unable to attend a call (s)he announces on the list and the first alternate available participates. Otherwise, it seems to me that there?ll be too many rules for to cover all ?what if? cases. Here, we are talking about only 3 alternates. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Farell FOLLY NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 25 Jul 2018, at 05:31, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Farzaneh, > > looks ok. I am just for keeping it simple :) > unless we may have several members missing many calls in a row, everything should be ok and we get enough coverage with 3 alternates. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mer. 25 juil. 2018 ? 02:07, farzaneh badii > a ?crit : > Hi > > So our agreements can be as follows: > > 1. Members have to assign an alternate for any meeting they cannot attend. > > 2. They need to announce on ncsg epdp list. And announce the alternate. > > 3. Preferably if two members cannot attend the same meeting need to assign two different alternates. If two members have chosen the same alternate they should agree among themselves to assign an additional alternate. > > 4. Preferably no one alternate should represent two members at the same meeting. > > 5. If the alternates cannot attend either, the world will come to an end and we don't even have to discuss epdp > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:24 AM Stephanie Perrin > wrote: > I agree that we need 100% coverage whenever possible. I think that how we arrange alternates will depend on frequency of calls, time rotation of calls (so far based on the doodle poll, not seeming much flexibility in the timing) and how people prefer to work. I doubt that all the calls will happen to be in the middle of the night for me because the two most popular time zones are likely to be (based on overall composition) California and Washington. I think perhaps we can do like we do for Council, let people select their alternative? I expect a lot of these calls are going to be (as usual) in the middle of the night for David, we should perhaps be preparing a wee map of our timezones.... > > cheers Steph > On 2018-07-23 23:07, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Just thought I?d start this conversation off now re: how and when we appoint alternates. >> >> 1) I think it would be beneficial for the NCSG to have 100% coverage on all calls; wherever possible we should not have calls where there are not 6 NCSG members present. Is this reasonable? >> >> 2) How will we appoint alternates? Is this something that should be arranged by the NCSG Chair, or is it an individual responsibility to find an alternate to cover us where we are unavailable? >> >> 3) Do we want rotation to be in place to ensure that all alternates are, to the greatest extent possible, invited to be an alternate for an equal number of calls? Or should other factors be considered, i.e. timezone of call/alternate, subject matter? >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 09:55:49 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:55:49 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] REMINDER! Fwd: GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, this is one of the tasks we mentioned in the last NCSG Policy call, we have a google doc here to collect NCSG input https://docs.google.com/document/d/13iQjVPy_yqfMu0jT3CrNu0WfHfyXLOWSMGaGb3PnnnM/edit . Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Heather Forrest Date: jeu. 26 juil. 2018 ? 15:48 Subject: [council] REMINDER! Fwd: GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper To: GNSO Council List Dear Council colleagues, Putting PDP3.0 back squarely on our collective radars....... Huge thanks to Marie for posting the BC's comments soon after ICANN62 ended. Following up on the Action Items from our recently concluded July Council meeting, Rafik, Donna and I are working on a plan for next steps for PDP3.0 after comments are received. *Reminder: Comments are due by 15 August*. At the August Council meeting, leadership will suggest that, after incorporating comments received, the report be put to Council for its consideration and endorsement at the September meeting, with outreach to the other SO/ACs at ICANN63. In particular, we are looking to highlight whether anything is missing in the recommendations, or recommendations that could be amended to better align with recent experiences. Best wishes, Heather ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marika Konings Date: Sat, May 12, 2018 at 7:23 AM Subject: [council] GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper To: "council at gnso.icann.org" *Sending on behalf of the Council leadership* Dear colleagues, Please find attached for your review the GNSO PDP 3.0 discussion paper. The Council leadership team has collaborated with staff in bringing all discussions and suggestions to date into one document for your and your respective communities? consideration. We welcome input, particularly on section 4 ? potential incremental improvements for consideration. In particular, which potential incremental improvements should be prioritized, are there any missing, are there additional implementation steps that should be considered? After receiving feedback, we hope to commence the development of an implementation plan proposing the when/how/who of implementing those incremental improvements agreed upon by the Council. To contribute to this next step in the improvements process we kindly request your feedback and/or that of your community by 8 June so that the Council can consider next steps during its meeting at ICANN62. Best regards, GNSO Council leadership team *Marika Konings* *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages . * _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: noname Type: application/octet-stream Size: 9983 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO PDP 3.0 - 8 May 2018.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 692229 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 26 11:36:57 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 04:36:57 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Red Cross Names in all gtlds In-Reply-To: <1D98348C-143C-4B3A-AA4A-70A818677E1B@benin2point0.org> References: <1D98348C-143C-4B3A-AA4A-70A818677E1B@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Thanks so much for drafting this comment, Farzi. Overall it looks nearly ready for submission, in my opinion. I think it would be useful to elaborate on why second level registrations by third parties should be permitted. I found this recommendation a little confusing, though I understand your reasoning and think I just don't have the background to how it came to be. I couldn't find the original GNSO Council decision; was it the GNSO Council that overreached and reserved second level names for IGOs? Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 24 July 2018 9:14 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: > Dear Farzaneh Badii, > > I reviewed your work and you did great as usual. > > Before reading your comments (I didn?t read our report in 2013, sorry), I was questioning myself on why one would recommend reservation of those names : (191 countries times all names variants) of DNS strings. Quite a lot that could never be used. I thought that as NGO/IGO they had a discussion with NCSG and NCSG admitted for a special case. I am happy that it is not the case. > > I have no objection after reading your proposal. Most of my comments were about Specification 5, the finite list of identifiers and especially about the DNS strings, and whether each country was contacted to validate the DNS string computed by the algorithm after they had submitted their ?Red Cross names?. I have a problem with some if not most. > > On a separate note, have we ever planned for a specific strategy in our outreaches to target those IGOs so that they have a rep (without a double voting capacity - LOL) within NCSG at earlier stage and be included in the discussions for the sake of more diversity and inclusiveness, or we just always conduct generic outreaches and let any Org to come us? > > Have a nice. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > >> On 23 Jul 2018, at 09:49, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> here we go with another public comment, this time on Red Cross. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >> >> We need to share this with the members very soon I think the deadline is 31 July. >> >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 26 11:51:57 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 04:51:57 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafik, Thanks so much for compiling this list. I have reviewed all of the documents, and have made suggested edits within the respective Google Docs. I think the fellowship comment, the short and long-term review option comments, and the IOT comment are all ready for submission. IGO names is nearly there. The Open Data Initiative in my opinion is not ready just yet, but I will expand upon the text today to try to get it there. But... the SSAC2 Review comment. I think that we missed the deadline; submissions were due last week (20 July) per this webpage[1]. Or was there an extension announced? Best wishes, Ayden [1] https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-06-21-en ??????? Original Message ??????? On 24 July 2018 9:05 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for endorsement: > > - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit > > - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit > > - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, > > - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit > > - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit > > - > > Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names > > in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit > > - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >> >> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >> >> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >> >> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> >> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >> >> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 12:01:55 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 18:01:55 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comment on Red Cross Names in all gtlds In-Reply-To: References: <1D98348C-143C-4B3A-AA4A-70A818677E1B@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, it is not the council this is a reconvened WG as the board asked to initiate a GNSO PDP manual mechanism to amend the initial recommendations approved by the council. motion voted last year for the reconvened WG https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+20+April+2017. hard to say it is the council overreach... Best, Rafik Le jeu. 26 juil. 2018 ? 17:37, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Thanks so much for drafting this comment, Farzi. > > Overall it looks nearly ready for submission, in my opinion. I think it > would be useful to elaborate on why second level registrations by third > parties should be permitted. I found this recommendation a little > confusing, though I understand your reasoning and think I just don't have > the background to how it came to be. I couldn't find the original GNSO > Council decision; was it the GNSO Council that overreached and reserved > second level names for IGOs? > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 24 July 2018 9:14 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: > > Dear Farzaneh Badii, > > I reviewed your work and you did great as usual. > > Before reading your comments (I didn?t read our report in 2013, sorry), I > was questioning myself on why one would recommend reservation of those > names : (191 countries times all names variants) of DNS strings. Quite a > lot that could never be used. I thought that as NGO/IGO they had a > discussion with NCSG and NCSG admitted for a special case. I am happy that > it is not the case. > > I have no objection after reading your proposal. Most of my comments were > about Specification 5, the finite list of identifiers and especially about > the DNS strings, and whether each country was contacted to validate the DNS > string computed by the algorithm after they had submitted their ?Red Cross > names?. I have a problem with some if not most. > > On a separate note, have we ever planned for a specific strategy in our > outreaches to target those IGOs so that they have a rep (without a double > voting capacity - LOL) within NCSG at earlier stage and be included in the > discussions for the sake of more diversity and inclusiveness, or we just > always conduct generic outreaches and let any Org to come us? > > Have a nice. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > On 23 Jul 2018, at 09:49, farzaneh badii wrote: > > here we go with another public comment, this time on Red Cross. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit > > > We need to share this with the members very soon I think the deadline is > 31 July. > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 12:05:29 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 18:05:29 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, Thanks, For SSAC review, we received communication from Angie from MSSI early this month with 27th July as the deadline and I confirmed this week by reaching her. so we are on time :) best, Rafik Le jeu. 26 juil. 2018 ? 17:52, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Hi Rafik, > > Thanks so much for compiling this list. > > I have reviewed all of the documents, and have made suggested edits within > the respective Google Docs. I think the fellowship comment, the short and > long-term review option comments, and the IOT comment are all ready for > submission. IGO names is nearly there. The Open Data Initiative in my > opinion is not ready just yet, but I will expand upon the text today to try > to get it there. > > But... the SSAC2 Review comment. I think that we missed the deadline; > submissions were due last week (20 July) per this webpage[1]. Or was there > an extension announced? > > Best wishes, > Ayden > > [1] https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-06-21-en > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 24 July 2018 9:05 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for > endorsement: > > > - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit > - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit > - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing > , > - Long-term Option, 31st July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit > - Short-term Options, 31st July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit > - > > Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names > > in all gTLDs, 31st July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit > - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team > (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >> >> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >> that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >> >> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 26 12:37:37 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 05:37:37 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh, that's great news then. I will look over the SSAC comment today. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 26 July 2018 11:05 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > Thanks, > For SSAC review, we received communication from Angie from MSSI early this month with 27th July as the deadline and I confirmed this week by reaching her. > so we are on time :) > > best, > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 26 juil. 2018 ? 17:52, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Hi Rafik, >> >> Thanks so much for compiling this list. >> >> I have reviewed all of the documents, and have made suggested edits within the respective Google Docs. I think the fellowship comment, the short and long-term review option comments, and the IOT comment are all ready for submission. IGO names is nearly there. The Open Data Initiative in my opinion is not ready just yet, but I will expand upon the text today to try to get it there. >> >> But... the SSAC2 Review comment. I think that we missed the deadline; submissions were due last week (20 July) per this webpage[1]. Or was there an extension announced? >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden >> >> [1] https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-06-21-en >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 24 July 2018 9:05 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for endorsement: >>> >>> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>> >>> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>> >>> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >>> >>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>> >>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>> >>> - >>> >>> Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names >>> >>> in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >>> >>> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>>> >>>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>> >>>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>> >>>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>> >>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>> >>>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 12:48:09 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:48:09 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Rafik, dear all, I reviewed the documents and agree that the fellowship, the IOT and the reviews options comments can be submitted. So consider this email please as an endorsement for submission. The open data needs to be at least cleared up, thanks to Ayden for taking this over - I am ready to go through later. SSAC looks good to me, I don't have anything to add so unless anyone wants to make changes I would endorse it as it is. Red Cross: I will go through it tomorrow again once am on the train ride, might suggest a couple of tweaks. Cheers, Tanya On 26 July 2018 at 10:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi Rafik, > > Thanks so much for compiling this list. > > I have reviewed all of the documents, and have made suggested edits within > the respective Google Docs. I think the fellowship comment, the short and > long-term review option comments, and the IOT comment are all ready for > submission. IGO names is nearly there. The Open Data Initiative in my > opinion is not ready just yet, but I will expand upon the text today to try > to get it there. > > But... the SSAC2 Review comment. I think that we missed the deadline; > submissions were due last week (20 July) per this webpage[1]. Or was there > an extension announced? > > Best wishes, > Ayden > > [1] https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-06-21-en > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On 24 July 2018 9:05 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for > endorsement: > > > - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/ > document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit > > - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/ > document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit > > - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/ > document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp= > sharing > > , > - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/ > document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit > > - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > 1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit > > - > > Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names > > in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > 19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit > > - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team > (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google. > com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit > > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >> >> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/ >> document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >> >> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/ >> 1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >> >> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/ >> document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp= >> sharing >> , >> that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/ >> document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> >> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/ >> 1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >> >> >> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Thu Jul 26 12:54:06 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:54:06 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: <716D7006-6BD6-46A4-AFF3-801235CF7FA9@benin2point0.org> References: <716D7006-6BD6-46A4-AFF3-801235CF7FA9@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Dear Rafik, I was done with the SSAC yesterday. Therefore, all of them are good to be submitted. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Farell FOLLY NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:20, Farell FOLLY wrote: > > Dear Rafik, > > I am ok with all but SSAC2 that I still need to review once more. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > Ekue (Farell) FOLLY > Technology Champion & Chapter Head > Africa 2.0 Foundation. > www.africa2point0.org > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > >> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:05, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for endorsement: >> >> [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >> [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >> [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing , >> Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >> Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >> The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak > a ?crit : >> Hi all, >> >> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >> SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >> Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >> Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing , that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >> Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 26 13:12:54 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 06:12:54 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: <716D7006-6BD6-46A4-AFF3-801235CF7FA9@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: <4boeqG8mpm_T_pUdJUZq_iF_--AxzAx3XELeaAUhHrqpSnDfwmwjrSkKxC9IGvKGtD9nGBio2v80bQeUWXpkg8AxpBjEwGOcYv4Dpwu5t5M=@ferdeline.com> The SSAC comment is a good one; thanks to those who were involved in drafting it! I've just gone through and made a number of minor, suggest edits to trim it down and to make our 'asks' a bit more explicit. I support its submission. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 26 July 2018 11:54 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: > Dear Rafik, > > I was done with the SSAC yesterday. Therefore, all of them are good to be submitted. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > Farell FOLLY > NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee > linkedin.com/in/farellf > >> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:20, Farell FOLLY wrote: >> >> Dear Rafik, >> >> I am ok with all but SSAC2 that I still need to review once more. >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> [www.africa2point0.org](http://www.africa2point0.org/) >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for endorsement: >>> >>> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>> >>> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>> >>> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >>> >>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>> >>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>> >>> - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Namesin all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >>> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>>> >>>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>> >>>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>> >>>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>> >>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>> >>>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 26 13:59:07 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 06:59:07 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0NPOirnkXBuFEBr9IMPewQoWr5AsQutl5vHXLyWlX9uwMuBK-ZgQhAiZTd0nndKNrLdbPmqrcfvTb6q1OyCy6PR-eCAzMrKeV92b1hHh2nI=@ferdeline.com> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit?usp=sharing I've made some pretty dramatic edits and cuts to the Open Data Initiative comment now. I think it's in better shape now, though I say this with the full disclosure that I am not an open data expert, so maybe there is something I have missed - we have quite a few amongst our members, it's a shame none have chimed in with edits... Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 26 July 2018 11:48 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > Dear Rafik, dear all, > I reviewed the documents and agree that the fellowship, the IOT and the reviews options comments can be submitted. So consider this email please as an endorsement for submission. > The open data needs to be at least cleared up, thanks to Ayden for taking this over - I am ready to go through later. SSAC looks good to me, I don't have anything to add so unless anyone wants to make changes I would endorse it as it is. > Red Cross: I will go through it tomorrow again once am on the train ride, might suggest a couple of tweaks. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On 26 July 2018 at 10:51, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Hi Rafik, >> >> Thanks so much for compiling this list. >> >> I have reviewed all of the documents, and have made suggested edits within the respective Google Docs. I think the fellowship comment, the short and long-term review option comments, and the IOT comment are all ready for submission. IGO names is nearly there. The Open Data Initiative in my opinion is not ready just yet, but I will expand upon the text today to try to get it there. >> >> But... the SSAC2 Review comment. I think that we missed the deadline; submissions were due last week (20 July) per this webpage[1]. Or was there an extension announced? >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden >> >> [1] https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-06-21-en >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 24 July 2018 9:05 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for endorsement: >>> >>> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>> >>> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>> >>> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >>> >>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>> >>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>> >>> - >>> >>> Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names >>> >>> in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >>> >>> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>>> >>>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>> >>>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>> >>>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>> >>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>> >>>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 26 14:49:14 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 07:49:14 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?Fw=3A_46=2C50_=E2=82=AC_in_free_credit_expire?= =?utf-8?q?s_soon?= In-Reply-To: <297e5d66-f43f-4277-a2dc-f2280c05f95b@ind1s01mta680.xt.local> References: <297e5d66-f43f-4277-a2dc-f2280c05f95b@ind1s01mta680.xt.local> Message-ID: FYI ??????? Original Message ??????? On 25 July 2018 9:02 AM, Slack wrote: > Ncsg has 46,50 ? in free credit, but it expires in 1 month. > > [Slack](http://click.email.slack-core.com/?qs=57572f5e8b78d0b83862508e020835385864577c3c86e15abfb32679fde23f7097d1aa74661d5533fccf64a2c638b58de9813f6998767c1c) > > Your 46,50 ? credit expires soon > Ncsg has 46,50 ? in free credit, but it expires in 1 month. > > With your credit, you could get as much as 1 month free on the Standard plan ? and unlock features like screen sharing, guest accounts, group calls and more. > [See Paid Plans](http://click.email.slack-core.com/?qs=0def57e5dd21be35139827852d4e0276480baadbaa1cea2288bf49a4dc8a689bd9655ada5d1719291009a52699e5bb6865bbd24d8bb0a3c7) > > [Slack Sub](http://click.email.slack-core.com/?qs=5c852f2074bb661e3ac5dda4023b31cd8ca9cb58ad44a115556b3c672263ee8e7e241f96646d247cde96d1ccb86e87aacc19436e3f8ab7d4) NCSG > Workspace URL: [icann-ncsg.slack.com](http://click.email.slack-core.com/?qs=693ed9eae8b81827c07aa5838db5dd6be5f87f223f93be8bc445f6809564dd9e5ee61ad8dbc4b1e84300733adafa7480fa17b41862a4e531) > Email: [icann at ferdeline.com](http://click.email.slack-core.com/?qs=137f81deb5ec4394dd54edb9b311781f699d4dd7a7e4331e08152b53b5f7304fe1eed264757f7aa169ec2630a985e486ba6de33673118608) > > [Sign In](http://click.email.slack-core.com/?qs=55db4bb97b10a181b4f8c8a87f9b381a06acd527558f6bf39b51d4037888d998b6d7b0da96f19ff443fc3b85d1b7edb76ce9e3325c1eef6f) > > Made by [Slack Technologies, Inc.](http://click.email.slack-core.com/?qs=49959cf7e03a2f623579707077f787666a5841597a63db00473c5031a8939d16257f1fb665ddf3f90e61ccff9256e21dd1316ab8077f3bd2) > 500 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 > > [Our Blog](http://click.email.slack-core.com/?qs=0005e3cfa3f4ee904c3cbabc84756c88062029bb68c8199132388a8ce0157fb349e6b28c45d8a3cbc82c6463a354987aa1955b820c160e2d) ? [Unsubscribe](http://click.email.slack-core.com/?qs=9bcf255cfd204efeea7588693c3fab1e8222af657e89eeecc355ba4b59a2870b5663e5047b788e44c025353b21fdf9768d530c19272df8e4) ? [Policies](http://click.email.slack-core.com/?qs=ffa5f6b2121d5e84afb30f6e8400b7179f1fd2e4acdf3e14e748e808e7da7b90d67017e3e97da5e3aceb4710c1ec347e18ef17fbe2b2a1b5) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 26 14:58:03 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 07:58:03 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Slack] NCSG updates for the week of July 15th, 2018 In-Reply-To: <01000164c6e11f0e-3bf9c063-8c49-4564-9f3b-926e0ea43ef0-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <01000164c6e11f0e-3bf9c063-8c49-4564-9f3b-926e0ea43ef0-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: Not sure if others receive the Slack stats too? Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On 23 July 2018 1:23 PM, Slack wrote: > Want more useful (and beautiful) data about the way your team uses Slack? > [Check out Slack Analytics.](https://my.slack.com/stats?utm_source=weeklyemail) > > https://www.slack.com > > NCSG?s Weekly Summary > > Sunday, July 15th ? Saturday, July 21st > > Hope you had a good weekend! Here's a summary of what happened in your workspace last week: > > Your members sent a total of 428 messages last week (that's 207 more than the week before). Of those, 1% were in public channels, 68% were in private channels, and 31% were direct messages. Your members also uploaded 2 files (that's 2 more than the week before). > > https://icann-ncsg.slack.com/x-t320153683220-403172577522/admin/stats > > Looking for more stats? Check out [your workspace's stats page](https://icann-ncsg.slack.com/x-t320153683220-403172577522/admin/stats). > > An average email is 500 characters. At that rate, your workspace?s Slack messages last week prevented 43 emails. At least. > > Your workspace has 1 owner: Ayden F?rdeline. There are 2 admins: Farzaneh and Rafik. In total there are 23 people in your workspace. > > Remember: it's important to [keep the list of owners and admins up to date](https://icann-ncsg.slack.com/x-t320153683220-403172577522/admin) since they control your workspace's settings. > > Your workspace is on Slack's Free plan, which is free to use for as long as you want for teams of all sizes. Interested in unlimited archive access and integrations, single sign-on, custom data retention, and more? [Check out our paid plans](https://icann-ncsg.slack.com/x-t320153683220-403172577522/pricing) to learn all about it. > > This email is sent to Workspace Owners and Admins of active workspaces. If you'd prefer not to receive these emails, you can [unsubscribe here](https://icann-ncsg.slack.com/unsub/U9E54P6HG-5f322b6c65-weekly). > > Made by [Slack Technologies, Inc](https://slack.com) ? [Our Blog](https://slackhq.com) > [500 Howard Street ? San Francisco, CA ? 94105 ? United States](#) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 05:49:51 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:49:51 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, thanks for the review and comments: those are targeted for submission on 27th july. - SSAC Comment is finalized and comments resolved. ready to go. I don't see any objection. - Fellowship comment, the latest paragraphs were deleted, so checking if the current text capture the comments there - ODI comment, Elsa will resolve the comments and last edits. document to be clean up. please continue the review and raise any concern. if there is objection I will submit the latest versions (and send them to PC for reference). if there is any issue, we can amend and resubmit. Best, Rafik Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 16:05, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > > here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for > endorsement: > > > - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit > - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit > - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing > , > - Long-term Option, 31st July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit > - Short-term Options, 31st July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit > - > > Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names > > in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit > > - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team > (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit > > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >> >> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >> that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >> >> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 10:11:27 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:11:27 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, yes, I proposed to delete that one. I don't see why it is important or relevant for us to know about staff travel with regard to open data. I think we made the same point regard staff travel several times in different public comments. to be honest, I am personally not interested in such information, other PC members can chime in and support or not. Best, Rafik Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 15:46, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > I see that one of my edits to the ODI comment was rejected, and I?d like > it to be inserted. > > In the list of omissions, I added a request for a new data set: > > *Full disclosure of staff travel expenses, including class of air travel > (first, business, premium economy, economy), number of days in advance of > travel that the trip was booked, department, reason for travel, and total > cost of the trip; * > > The reason for the rejection was that it was ?financial information.? > > I think this is a very relevant request, and I also note that an > *existing* data set proposed by ICANN org for the ODI is community travel > expenditure. > > So, I?d like us to have access to the same information from staff. I know > it is unlikely that we?ll get it, but I think it?s important to ask. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > On 27 Jul 2018, at 04:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > thanks for the review and comments: > > those are targeted for submission on 27th july. > - SSAC Comment is finalized and comments resolved. ready to go. I don't > see any objection. > - Fellowship comment, the latest paragraphs were deleted, so checking if > the current text capture the comments there > - ODI comment, Elsa will resolve the comments and last edits. document to > be clean up. > > please continue the review and raise any concern. if there is objection I > will submit the latest versions (and send them to PC for reference). if > there is any issue, we can amend and resubmit. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 16:05, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for >> endorsement: >> >> >> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing >> , >> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >> - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names >> in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >> >> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team >> (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >> >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>> >>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >>> that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>> >>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 10:16:33 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 09:16:33 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Agree with Rafik here. I do not support adding the point about staff travel. I don?t believe this data is important or relevant. Cheers, Tanya On Fri 27. Jul 2018 at 09:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > yes, I proposed to delete that one. > I don't see why it is important or relevant for us to know about staff > travel with regard to open data. I think we made the same point regard > staff travel several times in different public comments. to be honest, I am > personally not interested in such information, other PC members can chime > in and support or not. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 15:46, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> I see that one of my edits to the ODI comment was rejected, and I?d like >> it to be inserted. >> >> In the list of omissions, I added a request for a new data set: >> >> *Full disclosure of staff travel expenses, including class of air travel >> (first, business, premium economy, economy), number of days in advance of >> travel that the trip was booked, department, reason for travel, and total >> cost of the trip; * >> >> The reason for the rejection was that it was ?financial information.? >> >> I think this is a very relevant request, and I also note that an >> *existing* data set proposed by ICANN org for the ODI is community >> travel expenditure. >> >> So, I?d like us to have access to the same information from staff. I know >> it is unlikely that we?ll get it, but I think it?s important to ask. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> > >> >> On 27 Jul 2018, at 04:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> thanks for the review and comments: >> >> those are targeted for submission on 27th july. >> - SSAC Comment is finalized and comments resolved. ready to go. I don't >> see any objection. >> - Fellowship comment, the latest paragraphs were deleted, so checking if >> the current text capture the comments there >> - ODI comment, Elsa will resolve the comments and last edits. document to >> be clean up. >> >> please continue the review and raise any concern. if there is objection I >> will submit the latest versions (and send them to PC for reference). if >> there is any issue, we can amend and resubmit. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 16:05, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for >>> endorsement: >>> >>> >>> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing >>> , >>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>> - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names >>> in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >>> >>> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team >>> (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>>> >>>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >>>> that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>> >>>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 27 10:18:44 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 03:18:44 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7A96E69A-F561-4A33-AC1F-BDB5FF4C4C2D@ferdeline.com> Hi Rafik, Yes, I have asked before, and I am reiterating the request by asking again. I think it is important that we have transparency around how much is being spent on staff travel and to which events, particularly when ICANN org is seeking to reduce its spend on community travel. It is not an insignificant chunk of the budget that we are talking about; from what I understand, it is over $10 million a year. I just noticed that another data set I requested has been proposed to be deleted: Full details of any events sponsored by ICANN, including event name, location, date(s), whether the support was one-off or recurring, and the nature of the support (if financial, including figures in USD); I think this data set is very important, and I would most definitely review it regularly, as would, I expect, other parts of the community. Thanks, Ayden > On 27 Jul 2018, at 09:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > yes, I proposed to delete that one. > I don't see why it is important or relevant for us to know about staff travel with regard to open data. I think we made the same point regard staff travel several times in different public comments. to be honest, I am personally not interested in such information, other PC members can chime in and support or not. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 15:46, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> I see that one of my edits to the ODI comment was rejected, and I?d like it to be inserted. >> >> In the list of omissions, I added a request for a new data set: >> >> Full disclosure of staff travel expenses, including class of air travel (first, business, premium economy, economy), number of days in advance of travel that the trip was booked, department, reason for travel, and total cost of the trip; >> >> The reason for the rejection was that it was ?financial information.? >> >> I think this is a very relevant request, and I also note that an existing data set proposed by ICANN org for the ODI is community travel expenditure. >> >> So, I?d like us to have access to the same information from staff. I know it is unlikely that we?ll get it, but I think it?s important to ask. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 04:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> thanks for the review and comments: >>> >>> those are targeted for submission on 27th july. >>> - SSAC Comment is finalized and comments resolved. ready to go. I don't see any objection. >>> - Fellowship comment, the latest paragraphs were deleted, so checking if the current text capture the comments there >>> - ODI comment, Elsa will resolve the comments and last edits. document to be clean up. >>> >>> please continue the review and raise any concern. if there is objection I will submit the latest versions (and send them to PC for reference). if there is any issue, we can amend and resubmit. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 16:05, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for endorsement: >>>> >>>> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>> >>>> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>> >>>> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>> >>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>> - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >>>> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>>>> >>>>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>>> >>>>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>>> >>>>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>>> >>>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>>> >>>>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Jul 27 10:21:11 2018 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 09:21:11 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9b31476c-cca6-5f53-57e8-118677d88305@mail.utoronto.ca> I may be unique in that I am the only one on this group who has lived under access to information legislation as a bureaucrat, and administered the law.? It is routine to ask for this stuff, and it has had a very edifying effect on travel expenses in the government I must say, over the past 40 years in my jurisdiction.? I think we should ask for it, support Ayden. It is an important budget item, and lack of planning has a drastic impact on budgets. Stephanie On 2018-07-27 09:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > yes, I proposed to delete that one. > I don't see why it is important or relevant for us to know about staff > travel with regard to open data. I think we made the same point regard > staff travel several times in different public comments. to be honest, > I am personally not interested in such information, other PC members > can chime in and support or not. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le?ven. 27 juil. 2018 ??15:46, Ayden F?rdeline > a ?crit?: > > I see that one of my edits to the ODI comment was rejected, and > I?d like it to be inserted. > > In the list of omissions, I added a request for a new data set: > > /Full disclosure of staff travel expenses, including class of air > travel (first, business, premium economy, economy), number of days > in advance of travel that the trip was booked, department, reason > for travel, and total cost of the trip; / > > The reason for the rejection was that it was ?financial information.? > > I think this is a very relevant request, and I also note that an > *existing*?data set proposed by ICANN org for the ODI is community > travel expenditure. > > So, I?d like us to have access to the same information from staff. > I know it is unlikely that we?ll get it, but I think it?s > important to ask. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > >> On 27 Jul 2018, at 04:49, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> thanks for the review and comments: >> >> those are targeted for submission on 27th july. >> - SSAC Comment is finalized and comments resolved. ready to go. I >> don't see any objection. >> - Fellowship comment, the latest paragraphs were deleted, so >> checking if the current text capture the comments there >> - ODI comment, Elsa will resolve the comments and last edits. >> document to be clean up. >> >> please continue the review and raise any concern. if there is >> objection I will submit the latest versions (and send them to PC >> for reference). if there is any issue, we can amend and resubmit. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le?mar. 24 juil. 2018 ??16:05, Rafik Dammak >> > a ?crit?: >> >> Hi all, >> >> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to >> review for endorsement: >> >> * [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >> * [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >> * [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, >> 27th,https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >> >> * Long-term Option, 31st July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> * Short-term Options, 31st July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >> * >> Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross >> Names >> in all gTLDs, 31st July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >> >> * The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight >> Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le?dim. 22 juil. 2018 ??19:58, Rafik Dammak >> > a >> ?crit?: >> >> Hi all, >> >> we have several public comments drafts to review for this >> month: >> >> * SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >> * Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >> * Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >> that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list >> but I will do it. >> * Long-term Option, 31st July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> * Short-term Options, 31st July, >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >> >> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 10:31:06 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:31:06 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: <7A96E69A-F561-4A33-AC1F-BDB5FF4C4C2D@ferdeline.com> References: <7A96E69A-F561-4A33-AC1F-BDB5FF4C4C2D@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 16:18, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Hi Rafik, > > Yes, I have asked before, and I am reiterating the request by asking again. > > I think it is important that we have transparency around how much is being > spent on staff travel and to which events, particularly when ICANN org is > seeking to reduce its spend on community travel. It is not an insignificant > chunk of the budget that we are talking about; from what I understand, it > is over $10 million a year. > > I just noticed that another data set I requested has been proposed to be > deleted: > > *Full details of any events sponsored by ICANN, including event name, > location, date(s), whether the support was one-off or recurring, and the > nature of the support (if financial, including figures in USD);* > > that is an oversight, I have no problem with one. I will correct that. > I think this data set is very important, and I would most definitely > review it regularly, as would, I expect, other parts of the community. > > if I understand correctly here, that is of particular interest for you as you are stating you will review it. I think it is better to use DIDP mechanism then. Best, Rafik > On 27 Jul 2018, at 09:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > yes, I proposed to delete that one. > I don't see why it is important or relevant for us to know about staff > travel with regard to open data. I think we made the same point regard > staff travel several times in different public comments. to be honest, I am > personally not interested in such information, other PC members can chime > in and support or not. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 15:46, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> I see that one of my edits to the ODI comment was rejected, and I?d like >> it to be inserted. >> >> In the list of omissions, I added a request for a new data set: >> >> *Full disclosure of staff travel expenses, including class of air travel >> (first, business, premium economy, economy), number of days in advance of >> travel that the trip was booked, department, reason for travel, and total >> cost of the trip; * >> >> The reason for the rejection was that it was ?financial information.? >> >> I think this is a very relevant request, and I also note that an >> *existing* data set proposed by ICANN org for the ODI is community >> travel expenditure. >> >> So, I?d like us to have access to the same information from staff. I know >> it is unlikely that we?ll get it, but I think it?s important to ask. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> >> On 27 Jul 2018, at 04:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> thanks for the review and comments: >> >> those are targeted for submission on 27th july. >> - SSAC Comment is finalized and comments resolved. ready to go. I don't >> see any objection. >> - Fellowship comment, the latest paragraphs were deleted, so checking if >> the current text capture the comments there >> - ODI comment, Elsa will resolve the comments and last edits. document to >> be clean up. >> >> please continue the review and raise any concern. if there is objection I >> will submit the latest versions (and send them to PC for reference). if >> there is any issue, we can amend and resubmit. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 16:05, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for >>> endorsement: >>> >>> >>> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing >>> , >>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>> - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names >>> in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >>> >>> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team >>> (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>>> >>>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >>>> that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>> >>>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 27 09:45:56 2018 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 02:45:56 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see that one of my edits to the ODI comment was rejected, and I?d like it to be inserted. In the list of omissions, I added a request for a new data set: Full disclosure of staff travel expenses, including class of air travel (first, business, premium economy, economy), number of days in advance of travel that the trip was booked, department, reason for travel, and total cost of the trip; The reason for the rejection was that it was ?financial information.? I think this is a very relevant request, and I also note that an existing data set proposed by ICANN org for the ODI is community travel expenditure. So, I?d like us to have access to the same information from staff. I know it is unlikely that we?ll get it, but I think it?s important to ask. Best wishes, Ayden > On 27 Jul 2018, at 04:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > thanks for the review and comments: > > those are targeted for submission on 27th july. > - SSAC Comment is finalized and comments resolved. ready to go. I don't see any objection. > - Fellowship comment, the latest paragraphs were deleted, so checking if the current text capture the comments there > - ODI comment, Elsa will resolve the comments and last edits. document to be clean up. > > please continue the review and raise any concern. if there is objection I will submit the latest versions (and send them to PC for reference). if there is any issue, we can amend and resubmit. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 16:05, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for endorsement: >> >> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >> >> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >> >> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >> >> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >> - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>> >>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>> >>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>> >>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>> >>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>> >>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 27 10:20:03 2018 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 03:20:03 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12C77531-C31E-41A8-A92C-F69BAF4FDD55@ferdeline.com> There are over 230 data sets. What is the harm in having one more data set? I think is is important and relevant, and I note that an existing data set is community travel expenditure. Why one standard for community expenditure, and another for staff? Ayden > On 27 Jul 2018, at 09:16, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Hi all, > Agree with Rafik here. I do not support adding the point about staff travel. I don?t believe this data is important or relevant. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On Fri 27. Jul 2018 at 09:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Ayden, >> >> yes, I proposed to delete that one. >> I don't see why it is important or relevant for us to know about staff travel with regard to open data. I think we made the same point regard staff travel several times in different public comments. to be honest, I am personally not interested in such information, other PC members can chime in and support or not. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 15:46, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >> >>> I see that one of my edits to the ODI comment was rejected, and I?d like it to be inserted. >>> >>> In the list of omissions, I added a request for a new data set: >>> >>> Full disclosure of staff travel expenses, including class of air travel (first, business, premium economy, economy), number of days in advance of travel that the trip was booked, department, reason for travel, and total cost of the trip; >>> >>> The reason for the rejection was that it was ?financial information.? >>> >>> I think this is a very relevant request, and I also note that an existing data set proposed by ICANN org for the ODI is community travel expenditure. >>> >>> So, I?d like us to have access to the same information from staff. I know it is unlikely that we?ll get it, but I think it?s important to ask. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >> >>>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 04:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> thanks for the review and comments: >>>> >>>> those are targeted for submission on 27th july. >>>> - SSAC Comment is finalized and comments resolved. ready to go. I don't see any objection. >>>> - Fellowship comment, the latest paragraphs were deleted, so checking if the current text capture the comments there >>>> - ODI comment, Elsa will resolve the comments and last edits. document to be clean up. >>>> >>>> please continue the review and raise any concern. if there is objection I will submit the latest versions (and send them to PC for reference). if there is any issue, we can amend and resubmit. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 16:05, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for endorsement: >>>>> >>>>> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>>> >>>>> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>>> >>>>> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >>>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>>> >>>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>>> - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >>>>> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>>>>> >>>>>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>>>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 27 13:28:28 2018 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:28:28 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Public Comments]: Draft Comment on Open Data Initiative Datasets and Metadata In-Reply-To: <1E0F0EAD-99D3-4352-B3D4-48F3FA9339E1@ferdeline.com> References: <5B562648.4000007@yorku.ca> <1E0F0EAD-99D3-4352-B3D4-48F3FA9339E1@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <67CE09F8-C606-46A8-8982-DF3E5055C5BB@ferdeline.com> Feedback from Raoul for the PC?s consideration. As I wrote on the NCSG-Discuss list, I think these benefits are already known to ICANN. -Ayden > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Raoul Plommer" > Subject: Re: [Public Comments]: Draft Comment on Open Data Initiative Datasets and Metadata > > Date: 27 July 2018 at 12:23:56 CEST > To: > Reply-To: "Raoul Plommer" > > Sorry for being late in returning to this, but could we add a sentence or just a small list on why opening data is commendable? > > Open data offers benefits in many areas and ICANN could gain from: > > - Transparency and democratic control > - Participation > - Self-empowerment > - Improved or new private products and services > - Innovation > - Improved efficiency of services > - Improved effectiveness of services > - Impact measurement of policies > - New knowledge from combined data sources and patterns in large data volumes > > -Raoul > > On 26 July 2018 at 13:54, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Hi Sam, >> >> I have made some rather substantial (proposed) edits to this statement now. In response to your comment, I have cited recommendation 10.5 of the Accountability and Transparency Review 2, and called for ICANN to provide non-commercial stakeholders with the resources required in order to interrogate and analyse this data. >> >> The Policy Committee is looking over this comment now (hence my last minute edits), but if there are any additional comments/suggestions that anyone has, we would still be able to consider them if they are added to the document today: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 23 July 2018 9:02 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> >>> Colleagues, >>> >>> While I fully endorse as much open data access for ICANN as is possible, without compromising personal privacy, I am sobered by the general view that in Open Government Data most of the benefits go to the deep pocketed stakeholders (corporate entities) that have the financial resources to mine the data. >>> >>> Giving civil society access, without it having research resources, leaves it dependent on those few academics who will mine the data in the public interest, or when it just occasionally catches data outliers that raise concerns. >>> >>> Sam L., >>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:54 PM, Rapha?l Beauregard-Lacroix wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Elsa, hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you and the team for taking the time for drafting the comment. I find that the points raised in the comment are indeed relevant! From a broader perspective, it is good that ICANN has plans to publish more data - I can see a lot of potential for qualitative and quantitative research here in various fields of social sciences! >>>>> >>>>> Best, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 13:31:19 2018 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 12:31:19 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Public Comments]: Draft Comment on Open Data Initiative Datasets and Metadata In-Reply-To: <67CE09F8-C606-46A8-8982-DF3E5055C5BB@ferdeline.com> References: <5B562648.4000007@yorku.ca> <1E0F0EAD-99D3-4352-B3D4-48F3FA9339E1@ferdeline.com> <67CE09F8-C606-46A8-8982-DF3E5055C5BB@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Agree, Ayden - as you said, the benefits are known and apparently, we don't have to make ICANN committing to making open data. Thank you. Cheers, Tanya On 27 July 2018 at 12:28, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Feedback from Raoul for the PC?s consideration. > > As I wrote on the NCSG-Discuss list, I think these benefits are already > known to ICANN. > > -Ayden > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *"Raoul Plommer" > *Subject: **Re: [Public Comments]: Draft Comment on Open Data Initiative > Datasets and Metadata* > *Date: *27 July 2018 at 12:23:56 CEST > *To: * > *Reply-To: *"Raoul Plommer" > > Sorry for being late in returning to this, but could we add a sentence or > just a small list on why opening data is commendable? > > Open data offers benefits in many areas and ICANN could gain from: > > - Transparency and democratic control > - Participation > - Self-empowerment > - Improved or new private products and services > - Innovation > - Improved efficiency of services > - Improved effectiveness of services > - Impact measurement of policies > - New knowledge from combined data sources and patterns in large data > volumes > > > -Raoul > > On 26 July 2018 at 13:54, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Hi Sam, >> >> I have made some rather substantial (proposed) edits to this statement >> now. In response to your comment, I have cited recommendation 10.5 of the >> Accountability and Transparency Review 2, and called for ICANN to provide >> non-commercial stakeholders with the resources required in order to >> interrogate and analyse this data. >> >> The Policy Committee is looking over this comment now (hence my last >> minute edits), but if there are any additional comments/suggestions that >> anyone has, we would still be able to consider them if they are added to >> the document today: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTk >> gD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On 23 July 2018 9:02 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >> >> Colleagues, >> >> While I fully endorse as much open data access for ICANN as is possible, >> without compromising personal privacy, I am sobered by the general view >> that in Open Government Data most of the benefits go to the deep pocketed >> stakeholders (corporate entities) that have the financial resources to mine >> the data. >> >> Giving civil society access, without it having research resources, leaves >> it dependent on those few academics who will mine the data in the public >> interest, or when it just occasionally catches data outliers that raise >> concerns. >> >> Sam L., >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:54 PM, Rapha?l Beauregard-Lacroix < >> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Elsa, hi all, >>> >>> Thank you and the team for taking the time for drafting the comment. I >>> find that the points raised in the comment are indeed relevant! From a >>> broader perspective, it is good that ICANN has plans to publish more data - >>> I can see a lot of potential for qualitative and quantitative research here >>> in various fields of social sciences! >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 15:03:50 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:03:50 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Public Comments]: Draft Comment on Open Data Initiative Datasets and Metadata In-Reply-To: References: <5B562648.4000007@yorku.ca> <1E0F0EAD-99D3-4352-B3D4-48F3FA9339E1@ferdeline.com> <67CE09F8-C606-46A8-8982-DF3E5055C5BB@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, similar comments were made during the drafting and were dropped. The public comment is specific on the questions asked: it is consulting regarding the proposed data bot about the relevance of open data. Best, Rafik Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 19:31, Tatiana Tropina a ?crit : > Agree, Ayden - as you said, the benefits are known and apparently, we > don't have to make ICANN committing to making open data. Thank you. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On 27 July 2018 at 12:28, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Feedback from Raoul for the PC?s consideration. >> >> As I wrote on the NCSG-Discuss list, I think these benefits are already >> known to ICANN. >> >> -Ayden >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *"Raoul Plommer" >> *Subject: **Re: [Public Comments]: Draft Comment on Open Data Initiative >> Datasets and Metadata* >> *Date: *27 July 2018 at 12:23:56 CEST >> *To: * >> *Reply-To: *"Raoul Plommer" >> >> Sorry for being late in returning to this, but could we add a sentence or >> just a small list on why opening data is commendable? >> >> Open data offers benefits in many areas and ICANN could gain from: >> >> - Transparency and democratic control >> - Participation >> - Self-empowerment >> - Improved or new private products and services >> - Innovation >> - Improved efficiency of services >> - Improved effectiveness of services >> - Impact measurement of policies >> - New knowledge from combined data sources and patterns in large data >> volumes >> >> >> -Raoul >> >> On 26 July 2018 at 13:54, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Hi Sam, >>> >>> I have made some rather substantial (proposed) edits to this statement >>> now. In response to your comment, I have cited recommendation 10.5 of the >>> Accountability and Transparency Review 2, and called for ICANN to provide >>> non-commercial stakeholders with the resources required in order to >>> interrogate and analyse this data. >>> >>> The Policy Committee is looking over this comment now (hence my last >>> minute edits), but if there are any additional comments/suggestions that >>> anyone has, we would still be able to consider them if they are added to >>> the document today: >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On 23 July 2018 9:02 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: >>> >>> Colleagues, >>> >>> While I fully endorse as much open data access for ICANN as is possible, >>> without compromising personal privacy, I am sobered by the general view >>> that in Open Government Data most of the benefits go to the deep pocketed >>> stakeholders (corporate entities) that have the financial resources to mine >>> the data. >>> >>> Giving civil society access, without it having research resources, >>> leaves it dependent on those few academics who will mine the data in the >>> public interest, or when it just occasionally catches data outliers that >>> raise concerns. >>> >>> Sam L., >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:54 PM, Rapha?l Beauregard-Lacroix < >>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Elsa, hi all, >>>> >>>> Thank you and the team for taking the time for drafting the comment. I >>>> find that the points raised in the comment are indeed relevant! From a >>>> broader perspective, it is good that ICANN has plans to publish more data - >>>> I can see a lot of potential for qualitative and quantitative research here >>>> in various fields of social sciences! >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 15:30:47 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 08:30:47 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: <12C77531-C31E-41A8-A92C-F69BAF4FDD55@ferdeline.com> References: <12C77531-C31E-41A8-A92C-F69BAF4FDD55@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: just jumping in on something not very relevant to the thread but I was wondering if we could ask ICANN to put the transcripts of all meetings since whenever transcripts becomes available in one place? At the moment we have to go to many different websites. Sorry... Last minute. It's not too important... On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:24 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > There are over 230 data sets. What is the harm in having one more data > set? I think is is important and relevant, and I note that an existing data > set is community travel expenditure. Why one standard for community > expenditure, and another for staff? > > Ayden > > > On 27 Jul 2018, at 09:16, Tatiana Tropina > wrote: > > Hi all, > Agree with Rafik here. I do not support adding the point about staff > travel. I don?t believe this data is important or relevant. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On Fri 27. Jul 2018 at 09:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Ayden, >> >> yes, I proposed to delete that one. >> I don't see why it is important or relevant for us to know about staff >> travel with regard to open data. I think we made the same point regard >> staff travel several times in different public comments. to be honest, I am >> personally not interested in such information, other PC members can chime >> in and support or not. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 15:46, Ayden F?rdeline a >> ?crit : >> >>> I see that one of my edits to the ODI comment was rejected, and I?d like >>> it to be inserted. >>> >>> In the list of omissions, I added a request for a new data set: >>> >>> *Full disclosure of staff travel expenses, including class of air travel >>> (first, business, premium economy, economy), number of days in advance of >>> travel that the trip was booked, department, reason for travel, and total >>> cost of the trip; * >>> >>> The reason for the rejection was that it was ?financial information.? >>> >>> I think this is a very relevant request, and I also note that an >>> *existing* data set proposed by ICANN org for the ODI is community >>> travel expenditure. >>> >>> So, I?d like us to have access to the same information from staff. I >>> know it is unlikely that we?ll get it, but I think it?s important to ask. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >> >>> >>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 04:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> thanks for the review and comments: >>> >>> those are targeted for submission on 27th july. >>> - SSAC Comment is finalized and comments resolved. ready to go. I don't >>> see any objection. >>> - Fellowship comment, the latest paragraphs were deleted, so checking if >>> the current text capture the comments there >>> - ODI comment, Elsa will resolve the comments and last edits. document >>> to be clean up. >>> >>> please continue the review and raise any concern. if there is objection >>> I will submit the latest versions (and send them to PC for reference). if >>> there is any issue, we can amend and resubmit. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 16:05, Rafik Dammak a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for >>>> endorsement: >>>> >>>> >>>> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing >>>> , >>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>> - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names >>>> in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >>>> >>>> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team >>>> (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>>>> >>>>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >>>>> that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>>> >>>>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 27 15:33:22 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 08:33:22 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: <12C77531-C31E-41A8-A92C-F69BAF4FDD55@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <11D089E0-A34D-4078-B080-36C2315968B0@ferdeline.com> Hmm, that?s a very good suggestion, Farzi. I will add some language to the comment now in support of this. Ayden > On 27 Jul 2018, at 14:30, farzaneh badii wrote: > > just jumping in on something not very relevant to the thread but I was wondering if we could ask ICANN to put the transcripts of all meetings since whenever transcripts becomes available in one place? At the moment we have to go to many different websites. Sorry... Last minute. It's not too important... > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:24 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> There are over 230 data sets. What is the harm in having one more data set? I think is is important and relevant, and I note that an existing data set is community travel expenditure. Why one standard for community expenditure, and another for staff? >> >> Ayden >> >>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 09:16, Tatiana Tropina wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> Agree with Rafik here. I do not support adding the point about staff travel. I don?t believe this data is important or relevant. >>> Cheers, >>> Tanya >>> >>> On Fri 27. Jul 2018 at 09:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> yes, I proposed to delete that one. >>>> I don't see why it is important or relevant for us to know about staff travel with regard to open data. I think we made the same point regard staff travel several times in different public comments. to be honest, I am personally not interested in such information, other PC members can chime in and support or not. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 15:46, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> I see that one of my edits to the ODI comment was rejected, and I?d like it to be inserted. >>>>> >>>>> In the list of omissions, I added a request for a new data set: >>>>> >>>>> Full disclosure of staff travel expenses, including class of air travel (first, business, premium economy, economy), number of days in advance of travel that the trip was booked, department, reason for travel, and total cost of the trip; >>>>> >>>>> The reason for the rejection was that it was ?financial information.? >>>>> >>>>> I think this is a very relevant request, and I also note that an existing data set proposed by ICANN org for the ODI is community travel expenditure. >>>>> >>>>> So, I?d like us to have access to the same information from staff. I know it is unlikely that we?ll get it, but I think it?s important to ask. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>> >>>>>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 04:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for the review and comments: >>>>>> >>>>>> those are targeted for submission on 27th july. >>>>>> - SSAC Comment is finalized and comments resolved. ready to go. I don't see any objection. >>>>>> - Fellowship comment, the latest paragraphs were deleted, so checking if the current text capture the comments there >>>>>> - ODI comment, Elsa will resolve the comments and last edits. document to be clean up. >>>>>> >>>>>> please continue the review and raise any concern. if there is objection I will submit the latest versions (and send them to PC for reference). if there is any issue, we can amend and resubmit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 16:05, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for endorsement: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >>>>>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>>>>> - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >>>>>>> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>>>>>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 15:36:58 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:36:58 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: <12C77531-C31E-41A8-A92C-F69BAF4FDD55@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, I think that is more relevant information transparency initiative: "The Information Transparency Initiative, which relates to simplifying access to documents and other non-tabular information. This initiative is independent of and complementary to the Open Data Initiative." Best, Rafik Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 21:31, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > just jumping in on something not very relevant to the thread but I was > wondering if we could ask ICANN to put the transcripts of all meetings > since whenever transcripts becomes available in one place? At the moment we > have to go to many different websites. Sorry... Last minute. It's not too > important... > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:24 AM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> There are over 230 data sets. What is the harm in having one more data >> set? I think is is important and relevant, and I note that an existing data >> set is community travel expenditure. Why one standard for community >> expenditure, and another for staff? >> >> Ayden >> >> >> On 27 Jul 2018, at 09:16, Tatiana Tropina >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> Agree with Rafik here. I do not support adding the point about staff >> travel. I don?t believe this data is important or relevant. >> Cheers, >> Tanya >> >> On Fri 27. Jul 2018 at 09:11, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> yes, I proposed to delete that one. >>> I don't see why it is important or relevant for us to know about staff >>> travel with regard to open data. I think we made the same point regard >>> staff travel several times in different public comments. to be honest, I am >>> personally not interested in such information, other PC members can chime >>> in and support or not. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 15:46, Ayden F?rdeline a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> I see that one of my edits to the ODI comment was rejected, and I?d >>>> like it to be inserted. >>>> >>>> In the list of omissions, I added a request for a new data set: >>>> >>>> *Full disclosure of staff travel expenses, including class of air >>>> travel (first, business, premium economy, economy), number of days in >>>> advance of travel that the trip was booked, department, reason for travel, >>>> and total cost of the trip; * >>>> >>>> The reason for the rejection was that it was ?financial information.? >>>> >>>> I think this is a very relevant request, and I also note that an >>>> *existing* data set proposed by ICANN org for the ODI is community >>>> travel expenditure. >>>> >>>> So, I?d like us to have access to the same information from staff. I >>>> know it is unlikely that we?ll get it, but I think it?s important to ask. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 04:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> thanks for the review and comments: >>>> >>>> those are targeted for submission on 27th july. >>>> - SSAC Comment is finalized and comments resolved. ready to go. I don't >>>> see any objection. >>>> - Fellowship comment, the latest paragraphs were deleted, so checking >>>> if the current text capture the comments there >>>> - ODI comment, Elsa will resolve the comments and last edits. document >>>> to be clean up. >>>> >>>> please continue the review and raise any concern. if there is objection >>>> I will submit the latest versions (and send them to PC for reference). if >>>> there is any issue, we can amend and resubmit. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 16:05, Rafik Dammak a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for >>>>> endorsement: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>>> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>>> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> , >>>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>>> - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names >>>>> in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >>>>> >>>>> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team >>>>> (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak >>>>> a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>>>>> >>>>>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>>>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>>>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >>>>>> that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>>>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 15:46:01 2018 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 08:46:01 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: <12C77531-C31E-41A8-A92C-F69BAF4FDD55@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Oh sorry I thought they were asking to comment that on both On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:37 AM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Farzaneh, > > I think that is more relevant information transparency initiative: "The > Information Transparency Initiative, which relates to simplifying access to > documents and other non-tabular information. This initiative is independent > of and complementary to the Open Data Initiative." > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 21:31, farzaneh badii > a ?crit : > >> just jumping in on something not very relevant to the thread but I was >> wondering if we could ask ICANN to put the transcripts of all meetings >> since whenever transcripts becomes available in one place? At the moment we >> have to go to many different websites. Sorry... Last minute. It's not too >> important... >> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:24 AM Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> There are over 230 data sets. What is the harm in having one more data >>> set? I think is is important and relevant, and I note that an existing data >>> set is community travel expenditure. Why one standard for community >>> expenditure, and another for staff? >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 09:16, Tatiana Tropina >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> Agree with Rafik here. I do not support adding the point about staff >>> travel. I don?t believe this data is important or relevant. >>> Cheers, >>> Tanya >>> >>> On Fri 27. Jul 2018 at 09:11, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ayden, >>>> >>>> yes, I proposed to delete that one. >>>> I don't see why it is important or relevant for us to know about staff >>>> travel with regard to open data. I think we made the same point regard >>>> staff travel several times in different public comments. to be honest, I am >>>> personally not interested in such information, other PC members can chime >>>> in and support or not. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 15:46, Ayden F?rdeline a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>>> I see that one of my edits to the ODI comment was rejected, and I?d >>>>> like it to be inserted. >>>>> >>>>> In the list of omissions, I added a request for a new data set: >>>>> >>>>> *Full disclosure of staff travel expenses, including class of air >>>>> travel (first, business, premium economy, economy), number of days in >>>>> advance of travel that the trip was booked, department, reason for travel, >>>>> and total cost of the trip; * >>>>> >>>>> The reason for the rejection was that it was ?financial information.? >>>>> >>>>> I think this is a very relevant request, and I also note that an >>>>> *existing* data set proposed by ICANN org for the ODI is community >>>>> travel expenditure. >>>>> >>>>> So, I?d like us to have access to the same information from staff. I >>>>> know it is unlikely that we?ll get it, but I think it?s important to ask. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 04:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> thanks for the review and comments: >>>>> >>>>> those are targeted for submission on 27th july. >>>>> - SSAC Comment is finalized and comments resolved. ready to go. I >>>>> don't see any objection. >>>>> - Fellowship comment, the latest paragraphs were deleted, so checking >>>>> if the current text capture the comments there >>>>> - ODI comment, Elsa will resolve the comments and last edits. document >>>>> to be clean up. >>>>> >>>>> please continue the review and raise any concern. if there is >>>>> objection I will submit the latest versions (and send them to PC for >>>>> reference). if there is any issue, we can amend and resubmit. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 16:05, Rafik Dammak >>>>> a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for >>>>>> endorsement: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>>>> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>>>> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> , >>>>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>>>> - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names >>>>>> in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team >>>>>> (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>>>>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>>>>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >>>>>>> that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>>>>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>>>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 15:53:14 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:53:14 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated Public Comments Draft to be reviewed In-Reply-To: References: <12C77531-C31E-41A8-A92C-F69BAF4FDD55@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, it is confusing when you check the spreadsheet it has all kind of (raw)datasets. few datasets include a list of meetings, minutes, transcripts like for CCWG published as a page. however, I am not sure that solves the issue of finding all meetings transcripts as I believe this more an issue of organizing documents, tagging, versioning them and make the search more accurate. Best, Rafik Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 21:46, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Oh sorry I thought they were asking to comment that on both > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:37 AM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi Farzaneh, >> >> I think that is more relevant information transparency initiative: "The >> Information Transparency Initiative, which relates to simplifying access to >> documents and other non-tabular information. This initiative is independent >> of and complementary to the Open Data Initiative." >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 21:31, farzaneh badii >> a ?crit : >> >>> just jumping in on something not very relevant to the thread but I was >>> wondering if we could ask ICANN to put the transcripts of all meetings >>> since whenever transcripts becomes available in one place? At the moment we >>> have to go to many different websites. Sorry... Last minute. It's not too >>> important... >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:24 AM Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> There are over 230 data sets. What is the harm in having one more data >>>> set? I think is is important and relevant, and I note that an existing data >>>> set is community travel expenditure. Why one standard for community >>>> expenditure, and another for staff? >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 09:16, Tatiana Tropina >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> Agree with Rafik here. I do not support adding the point about staff >>>> travel. I don?t believe this data is important or relevant. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Tanya >>>> >>>> On Fri 27. Jul 2018 at 09:11, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden, >>>>> >>>>> yes, I proposed to delete that one. >>>>> I don't see why it is important or relevant for us to know about staff >>>>> travel with regard to open data. I think we made the same point regard >>>>> staff travel several times in different public comments. to be honest, I am >>>>> personally not interested in such information, other PC members can chime >>>>> in and support or not. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 ? 15:46, Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> I see that one of my edits to the ODI comment was rejected, and I?d >>>>>> like it to be inserted. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the list of omissions, I added a request for a new data set: >>>>>> >>>>>> *Full disclosure of staff travel expenses, including class of air >>>>>> travel (first, business, premium economy, economy), number of days in >>>>>> advance of travel that the trip was booked, department, reason for travel, >>>>>> and total cost of the trip; * >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason for the rejection was that it was ?financial information.? >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this is a very relevant request, and I also note that an >>>>>> *existing* data set proposed by ICANN org for the ODI is community >>>>>> travel expenditure. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, I?d like us to have access to the same information from staff. I >>>>>> know it is unlikely that we?ll get it, but I think it?s important to ask. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 04:49, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for the review and comments: >>>>>> >>>>>> those are targeted for submission on 27th july. >>>>>> - SSAC Comment is finalized and comments resolved. ready to go. I >>>>>> don't see any objection. >>>>>> - Fellowship comment, the latest paragraphs were deleted, so checking >>>>>> if the current text capture the comments there >>>>>> - ODI comment, Elsa will resolve the comments and last edits. >>>>>> document to be clean up. >>>>>> >>>>>> please continue the review and raise any concern. if there is >>>>>> objection I will submit the latest versions (and send them to PC for >>>>>> reference). if there is any issue, we can amend and resubmit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 16:05, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> here the updated list of public comment the PC needs to review for >>>>>>> endorsement: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - [Urgent] SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>>>>> - [Urgent] Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>>>>> - [Urgent] Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>>>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>>>>> - Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names >>>>>>> in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team >>>>>>> (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le dim. 22 juil. 2018 ? 19:58, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we have several public comments drafts to review for this month: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - SSAC2 review, deadline 27th July, >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttzoZUlN0PU-J5j1o5MG8fjfnqjjAyNsImIYGnexFGw/edit >>>>>>>> - Open Data Initiative, 27th July, >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZmWcncubvRV572mZyU0pRKTkgD8K7sT4qPXcn01lk0U/edit >>>>>>>> - Draft Proposal on fellowship, 27th, >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rUjAgOGtp3FLX6AsrGpmqC6mnQ17qNRkqQJHpvPYh-Q/edit?usp=sharing, >>>>>>>> that is still not shared yet in the main NCSG list but I will do it. >>>>>>>> - Long-term Option, 31st July, >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit >>>>>>>> - Short-term Options, 31st July, >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> please review those comments for endorsment in coming days. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> -- > Farzaneh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 02:12:01 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 08:12:01 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN UAM consultation Message-ID: Hi all, We only discussed UAM in Panama as it was shared just prior to it, I think we got to pay more attention. Reading this blog post https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-key-gdpr-whois-updates-and-next-steps, ICANN org seems going ahead with the access model ignoring that the EPDP process was just initiated. I think it will be sensible to give input now. I expect there will be attempts to impose it at least as input for EPDP team. any thoughts? Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 08:04:32 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:04:32 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments Draft to be reviewed for 31st July In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, thanks all, as there was no objection in PC list and with the deadline, the 3 comments were submitted (attached) in time. we still have more to do in the coming days. The next comments for review and endorsement are: - [urgent] Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit - [urgent] Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit - [urgent] Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit I think the top 3 are in good shape and just need your review. they were already shared in NCSG list for comments. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open Data Initiative Datasets and Metadata - NCSG Draft.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 167587 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach - NCSG Draft .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 131867 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SSAC2 review - NCSG comment .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 126724 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Sat Jul 28 10:50:19 2018 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 03:50:19 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN UAM consultation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, I agree that we should provide input. This parallel process isn?t going away, but it will go ahead without our feedback. Best wishes, Ayden > On 28 Jul 2018, at 01:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > We only discussed UAM in Panama as it was shared just prior to it, I think we got to pay more attention. Reading this blog post https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-key-gdpr-whois-updates-and-next-steps, ICANN org seems going ahead with the access model ignoring that the EPDP process was just initiated. I think it will be sensible to give input now. I expect there will be attempts to impose it at least as input for EPDP team. > any thoughts? > > Best, > > Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Jul 28 11:05:32 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 04:05:32 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Open Data comment Message-ID: <5BB7C858-4615-4D61-A0C7-E2395605734A@ferdeline.com> Open Data Initiative I am not happy with the version of this comment that the NCSG submitted, so just to note this formally, I do not approve of its submission. I understand that has already happened, though I had already noted on this list some of my objections regarding the removal of important and relevant missing data sets. I am disappointed that my edits here were deleted. Overall, I think the comment submitted is unprofessional. I had made a number of edits to try to bring the comment along, but I don?t see them all in the submitted document. I am not happy that something so radically different to what had been proposed this time yesterday has ended up being submitted. Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 20:17:18 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:17:18 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN UAM consultation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We should make a statement that whatever the Org puts out will just be temporally for a few months, and in any case Org should adopt a conservative approach and give as little access as possible, in the spirit of complying with GDPR and due to the already going EPDP. A hands off approach to the issue, since they are not the normal due process of ICANN. Cheers, Mart?n > On 28 Jul 2018, at 04:50, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Yes, I agree that we should provide input. This parallel process isn?t going away, but it will go ahead without our feedback. > > Best wishes, Ayden > >> On 28 Jul 2018, at 01:12, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> We only discussed UAM in Panama as it was shared just prior to it, I think we got to pay more attention. Reading this blog post https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-key-gdpr-whois-updates-and-next-steps , ICANN org seems going ahead with the access model ignoring that the EPDP process was just initiated. I think it will be sensible to give input now. I expect there will be attempts to impose it at least as input for EPDP team. >> any thoughts? >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 20:27:56 2018 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:27:56 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments Draft to be reviewed for 31st July In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Regarding the three ones to final review here, I?ve already commented in the ones I had something to add and they were already addressed. So I am ok with them. Cheers, Mart?n > On 28 Jul 2018, at 02:04, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > thanks all, > as there was no objection in PC list and with the deadline, the 3 comments were submitted (attached) in time. > we still have more to do in the coming days. The next comments for review and endorsement are: > [urgent] Long-term Option, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit > [urgent] Short-term Options, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit > [urgent] Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit > The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit I think the top 3 are in good shape and just need your review. they were already shared in NCSG list for comments. > > Best, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 29 23:11:25 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 16:11:25 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi all, I have been working on our own Document Repository; here?s a first draft on Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ElaeXAEcsxpju6q_mLP6R7waIFOJJAJTf_-X3cBFMmc/edit?usp=sharing I am sure there is a lot missing; you?ll even notice that there are a few resources without a link, so if you happen to have a copy of a missing file, please can you send it my way? This document is open to all to edit, so please do expand upon the contents if you have anything to add. Best wishes, Ayden > On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:08, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > the wiki space was created and can be used already to add any resources or material. I understand that Ayden is compiling the resources to share by end of this week. > skype channel is also created and we can add people by invitation. > the mailing list is already created and should be used. I will share info in NCSG list for those who want to join in addition to other details related to EPDP team. Maryam as admin manages the request and check if the requestor is a member or not. > for the bi-weekly call, I am for selecting a day/time so we can schedule for several weeks ahead, I will wait to see what will be the EPDP team own calendar before. One tentative day is Tuesday but not in the same week when we have Council call e.g. that will be NCSG Policy call instead. > > I see we got one task suggested: comparing recordings and transcripts. any other task to propose? > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 15:53, Farell FOLLY a ?crit : > >> Dear Rafik, >> >> You are very strong, do you ever get a rest? I am sure you missed your vocational job as a soldier.. LOL.. >> >> Thanks for bringing this, indeed we need to go forward. I agree with Steph on the bi-weekly plan so that we do not get (a) burden too soon but also have materials to discuss after two weeks. I am ok with Ayden suggestions, too. Good EPDP team. >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> [www.africa2point0.org](http://www.africa2point0.org/) >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>> Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I leave it to you techies. >>> >>> I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. >>> >>> We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. On the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). >>> >>> I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... >>> >>> Stephanie >>> On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) >>>> >>>> Hi Rafik, >>>> >>>> Thanks for initiating this discussion. >>>> >>>> I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an unexpected email address subscribed... >>>> >>>> A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last week it had over 500 messages exchanged. >>>> >>>> As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. >>>>> >>>>> several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. >>>>> >>>>> one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? >>>>> >>>>> for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. >>>>> >>>>> documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. >>>>> >>>>> we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. >>>>> >>>>> please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. >>>>> >>>>> in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>>> Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 >>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process >>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin >>>>> Cc: ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. >>>>> >>>>> I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can >>>>> - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list >>>>> - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. >>>>> - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. >>>>> >>>>> it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. >>>>> >>>>> I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Mon Jul 30 07:42:20 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 06:42:20 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Dear Ayden, Great Job. As we are now using Slack, may I suggest to add this document repository to our Slack Workspace for more consistency? I saw that Google Drive Apps can be interfaced with Slack, therefore; It seems interesting to add at least this first document to it. However, as I am not an admin of the Workspace, I am not sure whether my change will apply to all of us in the PC. See screenshot attached. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ Farell FOLLY NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 29 Jul 2018, at 22:11, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have been working on our own Document Repository; here?s a first draft on Google Docs: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ElaeXAEcsxpju6q_mLP6R7waIFOJJAJTf_-X3cBFMmc/edit?usp=sharing > > I am sure there is a lot missing; you?ll even notice that there are a few resources without a link, so if you happen to have a copy of a missing file, please can you send it my way? > > This document is open to all to edit, so please do expand upon the contents if you have anything to add. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > >> On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:08, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> the wiki space was created and can be used already to add any resources or material. I understand that Ayden is compiling the resources to share by end of this week. >> skype channel is also created and we can add people by invitation. >> the mailing list is already created and should be used. I will share info in NCSG list for those who want to join in addition to other details related to EPDP team. Maryam as admin manages the request and check if the requestor is a member or not. >> for the bi-weekly call, I am for selecting a day/time so we can schedule for several weeks ahead, I will wait to see what will be the EPDP team own calendar before. One tentative day is Tuesday but not in the same week when we have Council call e.g. that will be NCSG Policy call instead. >> >> I see we got one task suggested: comparing recordings and transcripts. any other task to propose? >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 15:53, Farell FOLLY > a ?crit : >> Dear Rafik, >> >> You are very strong, do you ever get a rest? I am sure you missed your vocational job as a soldier.. LOL.. >> >> >> Thanks for bringing this, indeed we need to go forward. I agree with Steph on the bi-weekly plan so that we do not get (a) burden too soon but also have materials to discuss after two weeks. I am ok with Ayden suggestions, too. Good EPDP team. >> >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: >>> >>> Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I leave it to you techies. >>> >>> I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. >>> >>> We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. On the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). >>> >>> I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... >>> >>> Stephanie >>> On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) >>>> >>>> Hi Rafik, >>>> >>>> Thanks for initiating this discussion. >>>> >>>> I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an unexpected email address subscribed... >>>> >>>> A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last week it had over 500 messages exchanged. >>>> >>>> As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. >>>>> >>>>> several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. >>>>> >>>>> one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? >>>>> >>>>> for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. >>>>> >>>>> documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. >>>>> >>>>> we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. >>>>> >>>>> please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. >>>>> >>>>> in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak > >>>>> Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 >>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process >>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin > >>>>> Cc: ncsg-pc > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. >>>>> >>>>> I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can >>>>> - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list >>>>> - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. >>>>> - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. >>>>> >>>>> it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. >>>>> >>>>> I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2018-07-30 at 06.39.46.png Type: image/png Size: 428931 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 08:23:46 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 14:23:46 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, thanks for this exhaustive compilation, we can add it to our wiki space for easy access. @all is any additional task you want to suggest for volunteers other than checking transcripts, I would like to send email to NCSG list so people can join the mailing list and/or volunteer for backroom tasks. that should be done prior to the EPDP team call this Wednesday. Best, Rafik Le lun. 30 juil. 2018 ? 05:11, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Hi all, > > I have been working on our own Document Repository; here?s a first draft > on Google Docs: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ElaeXAEcsxpju6q_mLP6R7waIFOJJAJTf_-X3cBFMmc/edit?usp=sharing > > I am sure there is a lot missing; you?ll even notice that there are a few > resources without a link, so if you happen to have a copy of a missing > file, please can you send it my way? > > This document is open to all to edit, so please do expand upon the > contents if you have anything to add. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:08, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > the wiki space was created and can be used already to add any resources or > material. I understand that Ayden is compiling the resources to share by > end of this week. > skype channel is also created and we can add people by invitation. > the mailing list is already created and should be used. I will share info > in NCSG list for those who want to join in addition to other details > related to EPDP team. Maryam as admin manages the request and check if the > requestor is a member or not. > for the bi-weekly call, I am for selecting a day/time so we can schedule > for several weeks ahead, I will wait to see what will be the EPDP team own > calendar before. One tentative day is Tuesday but not in the same week when > we have Council call e.g. that will be NCSG Policy call instead. > > I see we got one task suggested: comparing recordings and transcripts. any > other task to propose? > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 15:53, Farell FOLLY a > ?crit : > >> Dear Rafik, >> >> You are very strong, do you ever get a rest? I am sure you missed your >> vocational job as a soldier.. LOL.. >> >> >> Thanks for bringing this, indeed we need to go forward. I agree with >> Steph on the bi-weekly plan so that we do not get (a) burden too soon but >> also have materials to discuss after two weeks. I am ok with Ayden >> suggestions, too. Good EPDP team. >> >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> >> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >> www.africa2point0.org >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote: >> >> Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call >> would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back >> channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I >> leave it to you techies. >> >> I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is >> tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. >> >> We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. >> On the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need >> resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have >> volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting >> documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). >> I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send >> when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with >> the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... >> >> Stephanie >> On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) >> >> Hi Rafik, >> >> Thanks for initiating this discussion. >> >> I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP >> strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG >> members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an >> unexpected email address subscribed... >> >> A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal >> Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last >> week it had over 500 messages exchanged. >> >> As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the >> meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I >> have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a >> number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on >> how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. >> >> several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks >> (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. >> >> one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps >> and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can >> strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? >> >> for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for >> example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that >> quickly. >> >> documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document >> positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can >> be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for >> working documents versioning. >> >> we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in >> term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. >> >> please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. >> >> in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a >> documents repository and so on. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Rafik Dammak >> Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection >> process >> To: Stephanie Perrin >> Cc: ncsg-pc >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from >> others. >> >> I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC >> monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular >> updates from representatives, we can >> - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the >> topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list >> - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who >> want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. >> - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) >> so we can refer to them easily. >> >> it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to >> setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am >> also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep >> things bearable for everyone. >> >> I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate >> the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. >> that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers >> too. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jul 30 11:56:40 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 04:56:40 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: Hi Farell, So I must confess I am not an expert in Slack either, because I thought that this document was already uploaded in there. Maybe the Google Drive app only shows it to me, as I am the editor of the file? I?ll look into it and see what can be done to make sure it is visible to others? thanks for the suggestion! Best wishes, Ayden > On 30 Jul 2018, at 06:42, Farell FOLLY wrote: > > Dear Ayden, > > Great Job. > > As we are now using Slack, may I suggest to add this document repository to our Slack Workspace for more consistency? I saw that Google Drive Apps can be interfaced with Slack, therefore; It seems interesting to add at least this first document to it. However, as I am not an admin of the Workspace, I am not sure whether my change will apply to all of us in the PC. > > See screenshot attached. > > > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > > ____________________________________ > Farell FOLLY > NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee > linkedin.com/in/farellf > >> On 29 Jul 2018, at 22:11, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have been working on our own Document Repository; here?s a first draft on Google Docs: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ElaeXAEcsxpju6q_mLP6R7waIFOJJAJTf_-X3cBFMmc/edit?usp=sharing >> >> I am sure there is a lot missing; you?ll even notice that there are a few resources without a link, so if you happen to have a copy of a missing file, please can you send it my way? >> >> This document is open to all to edit, so please do expand upon the contents if you have anything to add. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >>> On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:08, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> the wiki space was created and can be used already to add any resources or material. I understand that Ayden is compiling the resources to share by end of this week. >>> skype channel is also created and we can add people by invitation. >>> the mailing list is already created and should be used. I will share info in NCSG list for those who want to join in addition to other details related to EPDP team. Maryam as admin manages the request and check if the requestor is a member or not. >>> for the bi-weekly call, I am for selecting a day/time so we can schedule for several weeks ahead, I will wait to see what will be the EPDP team own calendar before. One tentative day is Tuesday but not in the same week when we have Council call e.g. that will be NCSG Policy call instead. >>> >>> I see we got one task suggested: comparing recordings and transcripts. any other task to propose? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 15:53, Farell FOLLY a ?crit : >>> >>>> Dear Rafik, >>>> >>>> You are very strong, do you ever get a rest? I am sure you missed your vocational job as a soldier.. LOL.. >>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing this, indeed we need to go forward. I agree with Steph on the bi-weekly plan so that we do not get (a) burden too soon but also have materials to discuss after two weeks. I am ok with Ayden suggestions, too. Good EPDP team. >>>> >>>> @__f_f__ >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> >>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>> [www.africa2point0.org](http://www.africa2point0.org/) >>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>> >>>>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I leave it to you techies. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. >>>>> >>>>> We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. On the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). >>>>> >>>>> I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... >>>>> >>>>> Stephanie >>>>> On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for initiating this discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an unexpected email address subscribed... >>>>>> >>>>>> A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last week it had over 500 messages exchanged. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>> From: Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process >>>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>> Cc: ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can >>>>>>> - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list >>>>>>> - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. >>>>>>> - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Mon Jul 30 16:37:58 2018 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:37:58 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP support activities / "Backroom" In-Reply-To: References: <1D4D69D7-7AE5-416C-B5A9-EA64FD7522F7@benin2point0.org> Message-ID: <3C9D6F89-BCD0-43E9-86ED-8ACF114DE919@benin2point0.org> Good, Probably it is because you have created the document. I?ve just seen that Slack can interface your Drive if access is granted and show your files?. Then the link can be shared within the workspace so that others can access it, too, provided that access has been granted on the Drive for the accounts accordingly. The main idea is not to replicate the document repository nor our wiki page, but use Slack as a central point with links to all our online ?spaces?. Slack seems more convenient for that : sometimes you browse many mails to retrieve a document or the link to it. BTW, I also discovered Slack with you, so don?t know more ? @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ (Ekue) Farell FOLLY NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 30 Jul 2018, at 10:56, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi Farell, > > So I must confess I am not an expert in Slack either, because I thought that this document was already uploaded in there. Maybe the Google Drive app only shows it to me, as I am the editor of the file? I?ll look into it and see what can be done to make sure it is visible to others? thanks for the suggestion! > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > >> On 30 Jul 2018, at 06:42, Farell FOLLY > wrote: >> >> Dear Ayden, >> >> Great Job. >> >> As we are now using Slack, may I suggest to add this document repository to our Slack Workspace for more consistency? I saw that Google Drive Apps can be interfaced with Slack, therefore; It seems interesting to add at least this first document to it. However, as I am not an admin of the Workspace, I am not sure whether my change will apply to all of us in the PC. >> >> See screenshot attached. >> >> >> >> @__f_f__ >> >> Best Regards >> ____________________________________ >> Farell FOLLY >> NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee >> linkedin.com/in/farellf >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 29 Jul 2018, at 22:11, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have been working on our own Document Repository; here?s a first draft on Google Docs: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ElaeXAEcsxpju6q_mLP6R7waIFOJJAJTf_-X3cBFMmc/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> I am sure there is a lot missing; you?ll even notice that there are a few resources without a link, so if you happen to have a copy of a missing file, please can you send it my way? >>> >>> This document is open to all to edit, so please do expand upon the contents if you have anything to add. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>>> On 25 Jul 2018, at 06:08, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> the wiki space was created and can be used already to add any resources or material. I understand that Ayden is compiling the resources to share by end of this week. >>>> skype channel is also created and we can add people by invitation. >>>> the mailing list is already created and should be used. I will share info in NCSG list for those who want to join in addition to other details related to EPDP team. Maryam as admin manages the request and check if the requestor is a member or not. >>>> for the bi-weekly call, I am for selecting a day/time so we can schedule for several weeks ahead, I will wait to see what will be the EPDP team own calendar before. One tentative day is Tuesday but not in the same week when we have Council call e.g. that will be NCSG Policy call instead. >>>> >>>> I see we got one task suggested: comparing recordings and transcripts. any other task to propose? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 ? 15:53, Farell FOLLY > a ?crit : >>>> Dear Rafik, >>>> >>>> You are very strong, do you ever get a rest? I am sure you missed your vocational job as a soldier.. LOL.. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing this, indeed we need to go forward. I agree with Steph on the bi-weekly plan so that we do not get (a) burden too soon but also have materials to discuss after two weeks. I am ok with Ayden suggestions, too. Good EPDP team. >>>> >>>> >>>> @__f_f__ >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> ____________________________________ >>>> >>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY >>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head >>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation. >>>> www.africa2point0.org >>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:02, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes thanks for getting this started Rafik! I agree that a biweekly call would be helpful, more than that is too much I think. We do need a back channel to use during meetings, either skype or slack is fine with me, I leave it to you techies. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Ayden that it is necessary to check the transcript, it is tedious but perhaps a team could take that on in turns. >>>>> >>>>> We need someone to organize an archive of relevant resource materials. On the wiki makes sense, need a finding aid prepared as well. We also need resources sorted so that we can find them....not my forte but we may have volunteers who could take this on. Even just to gather all the supporting documents in one place (e.g. letters from DPAs, legislation, etc). >>>>> >>>>> I am working on the annotated interim unified access model... will send when it is done. Also perhaps pull out some of the key things wrong with the EWG report, since it is being cited as a guide to tiered access.... >>>>> >>>>> Stephanie >>>>> On 2018-07-23 22:53, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> (cc?ing in those who are not subscribed to this list) >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for initiating this discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with starting a new, closed discussion list for EPDP strategising. We will need to watch the enrolment to ensure that only NCSG members subscribe; I remember when we had the closed GDPR list, an unexpected email address subscribed... >>>>>> >>>>>> A biweekly NCSG EPDP call seems sensible to me, as does the informal Skype chat. Or we could use the NCSG Slack, which is growing in use. Last week it had over 500 messages exchanged. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for tasks, it would be helpful to have volunteers to listen to the meeting recordings and to compare our interventions with the transcript. I have just done this for our July 19 Council meeting ? and emailed through a number of corrections to ensure it is a verbatim record. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:10, Rafik Dammak > wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> as we are done now with the selection, we can resume our discussion on how to coordinate NCSG interventions and support EPDP members actions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> several NCSG members expressed interest to help and volunteer for tasks (to be listed). so please share your ideas for any relevant task. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> one quick action is to create a separate mailing list including EPDP reps and any interested volunteer. the mailing list may be non-public as we can strategize there. @Maryam can you please create a new list? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for the EPDP conf calls, it would make sense to have a skype chat for example for real-time discussion and coordination. I can set up that quickly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> documentation: that point was made several times that we need to document positions, interventions etc for referring to them later. I think that can be supported by volunteers and with guidance from EPDP members. same for working documents versioning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we can also schedule EPDP NCSG call. maybe weekly will be too much in term of scheduling and adding more burden. biweekly would make more sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> please share your thoughts and suggestions if I missed anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> in meantime, Maryam can create a wiki space where to put info, having a documents repository and so on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>> From: Rafik Dammak > >>>>>>> Date: mar. 17 juil. 2018 ? 13:43 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] call for volunteers for EPDP team / Selection process >>>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin > >>>>>>> Cc: ncsg-pc > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie and Martin for the quick response, looking to hear from others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wanted also to add about the coordination channels, which includes PC monitoring EPDP team, regular NCSG confcall for EPDP and getting regular updates from representatives, we can >>>>>>> - have a non-public mailing list only for our members interested by the topic, but we will keep up to date the whole membership via NCSG list >>>>>>> - setup a skype channel for including the representatives and others who want to back up so we can do coordination during the calls. >>>>>>> - documenting positions and arguments (for example in wiki or google doc) so we can refer to them easily. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it doesn't matter what tech we will choose at the end but we need to setup this quickly and ensure its continuity for the duration of EPDP. I am also mindful to not put more workload and overhead for this effort and keep things bearable for everyone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see the role of PC to support the EPDP representatives and facilitate the work, we need some division of labor to be efficient and effective. that also includes all interested people by the topic who are observers too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jul 30 17:07:35 2018 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:07:35 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] SCBO Meeting - Action Item for NCSG In-Reply-To: <07f401d4280b$c5298190$4f7c84b0$@berrycobb.com> References: <06b201d4274f$a5e33ea0$f1a9bbe0$@berrycobb.com> <07f401d4280b$c5298190$4f7c84b0$@berrycobb.com> Message-ID: <5F2A41C4-B6F0-4378-B985-1407264EE2B2@ferdeline.com> Dear all, On today?s Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO) call, we reviewed the attached report and have agreed to take the questions in Item 1.4 back to our respective communities to ponder. We need to prepare a brief response to these questions by 13 August and, once we have an agreement, must share them on the SCBO mailing list. Note also the new timeline for FY20; the budgetary process will begin much earlier this year, starting the day before the IGF in Paris, and running through (American) Thanksgiving, Hannukah, Christmas, and New Year celebrations. How nice of ICANN to ask us to work then preparing our comment, so that ICANN staff can return to work in the New Year and review our comments? Ayden > On 30 Jul 2018, at 15:46, wrote: > > Hi All, > > Please find attached the next version of the SCBO After Action Report. The action from SCBO members and SMEs is take the questions back to their respective groups to solicit input and suggestions for converting the questions into statements and/or observations. In parallel, Phillipe will collaborate with the CCNSO about a liaison relationship between the two groups. > > Thank you. > > B > > Berry A. Cobb > > GNSO Policy Consultant > > @berrycobb > > From: Gnso-sc-budget [mailto:gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of mail at berrycobb.com > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 11:20 > To: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org > Subject: [Gnso-sc-budget] Agenda - 30 July 2018 - SCBO Meeting - 13:00 UTC > > Hi All, > > Please find below our agenda for the 30 July 2018 SCBO call at 13:00 UTC. The call is scheduled for 60 minutes. > > 1) Administrative Matters > > a. SOIs > > 2) Review draft SCBO After Action Report > > 3) AOB / Next meeting > > I attached a draft of the After Action Report for your review prior to the meeting. Track changes are enabled should you have any suggested changes. In chatting with Council leadership, consideration of the SCBO report will occur in September. Therefore, we need to have this report completed by 17 September 2018 for the Motions and Documents deadline. > > Thank you. > > B > > Berry A. Cobb > > 720.839.5735 > > mail at berrycobb.com > > @berrycobb > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: gnso-SCBO-after-action-report-v0.2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 149092 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 03:46:21 2018 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:46:21 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Public Comments Draft to be reviewed for 31st July In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Thanks Martin for review and endorsement. the deadline for submission is today 31st July. the 3 comments are in good shape and main comments were resolved (I have some comments there but they are not blocking issue and current content is ok). those comments have been for awhile under PC review and I think several PC members supported them already on other threads. if there is no objection by Tuesday 31st July 23:00UTC, the 3 comments will be submitted. The IRP-IOT comment will be handled later while I think it is ready too. Best, Rafik Le dim. 29 juil. 2018 ? 02:27, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> a ?crit : > Regarding the three ones to final review here, I?ve already commented in > the ones I had something to add and they were already addressed. So I am ok > with them. > > Cheers, > Mart?n > > On 28 Jul 2018, at 02:04, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > thanks all, > as there was no objection in PC list and with the deadline, the 3 comments > were submitted (attached) in time. > we still have more to do in the coming days. The next comments for review > and endorsement are: > > - [urgent] Long-term Option, 31st July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VItIeJMKjQMinu_IvJ1uJOvXSfTc_4U5ay_k7F6beOQ/edit > - [urgent] Short-term Options, 31st July, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oh6cxVsFJXheU94A2ieivuz6komPn8fI9f_i_hMqgg8/edit > - [urgent] Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross > Names > in all gTLDs, 31st July, https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit > > - The Independent Review Process Implementation Oversight Team > (IRP-IOT) Draft Recommendations, 10th August, > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlDp0qcVUbZYH0qZdijqsoQWQG5V2jsK1NFoYmsRgSc/edit > > I think the top 3 are in good shape and just need your review. they were > already shared in NCSG list for comments. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach - NCSG Draft .pdf> review - NCSG comment .pdf>_______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: